Cartoon lessons in Physics.

Cartoons are teaching our children about the world. However, the lessons they teach are a tapestry of errors.

Today, I was watching a cartoon with my kids, when I saw something that is typical of the cartoon world. A baby fell from a building and an adult jumped after it, some seconds later, in an attempt to catch it, and cushion its fall. Apart from, of course, the lunacy of imagining that two falling people are better than one, I saw a fundamental problem with the sketch that unfolded - and so did Ainan.

As is the way of cartoons, the journey to the Earth was rather eventful, with many twists, turns and interesting encounters on the way down - though both baby and adult continued, generally, to fall.

Towards the end, baby and adult took different paths. The adult fell into a giant tube, the baby passed alongside the outside of it. Oddly, the adult, who had jumped second, came out of the tube at the bottom FIRST - and caught the baby, saving the day.

"Impossible!" I said, to Ainan's agreement.

I know cartoons are meant to be enjoyed, but is it necessary for them to teach young children errors about the physical world? The acceleration due to gravity is going to be the same for all falling objects, the only variation being their ultimate terminal velocity. Basically, the man cannot catch the baby, because both are subject to the same acceleration, unless, for some reason, the baby's terminal velocity were lower than the man's.

Cartoons are eagerly watched for many years by growing children. I watched them, too. Yet, now that I am a father, I find myself concerned at whether children who watch them, come to imbibe misunderstandings about the physical world.

This, of course, leads to the question: is it impossible to be entertaining without breaking the laws of physics? I don't think so. There is nothing in the nature of entertainment or a child's mind that requires physics to be discarded when making an entertaining cartoon or any other form of entertainment. I think the problem here is more likely to be that cartoonists DON'T KNOW ANY PHYSICS. I think many of the cartoonists don't know that some of the things they do violate basic principles and are thus purveying misinformation. Of course, in other cases, I am sure that violation of basic physical principles is done precisely because it leads to interesting consequences - but there is nothing about how humans are entertained that requires that cartoons do that, universally.

All that our children hear, see, touch and feel, is part of their education about the world. I would like to see more responsible cartoon making that doesn't include subtle errors that might confuse a child about how physical reality actually works. Physics is difficult enough, for most children, without confusing them about its basic laws.

Some people will dismiss my concerns with a "Of course the children know it is not real!". Well, that is most certainly not so for young children (my two year old, Tiarnan, for instance, is convinced that he knows where Ben 10 lives!). Furthermore, many of the errors of physics found in cartoons are subtle - such as the falling adult catching the baby. They are impossible, but not obviously impossible to a young child. These are particularly dangerous. It is only when a child has developed sophistication about the physical world that they will spot such errors (such as Ainan did). However, the cartoons, themselves, will interfere with the development of such physical sophistication.

I think it is time that cartoon makers and Hollywood, in general, behaved a little more responsibly towards their young audience. I don't think it helps the world to be confusing young minds in this way, with lessons in misinformation that they may, actually, never unlearn.

Films and cartoons can be fun, without misinforming the audience. Why not try making entertainments that actually respect the laws of physics? It would certainly make it easier to be a teacher of young children, without having to correct a myriad of cartoon induced misunderstandings.

Note: It has come to my attention that at least one reader thinks I am stating that my own children are confused about physics. They are not. In fact, the eldest is very competent in physics and the others are just fine. I write about children in general, in this case and NOT my children in particular.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

A curiously personalized personal computer.

Ainan's computer does things my computer doesn't. Furthermore, it isn't because he has bought software I haven't got - it is because Ainan has made his computer behave that way.

Somehow, he has taught himself how to programme certain aspects of his computer. Making particular entries brings up unique message boxes, with comic messages in them (written by Ainan). One popular programme launch button has even been booby trapped so that pressing it shuts the computer down. Ainan thinks this is hilarious, since anyone, but him, who uses his computer is likely to run into that and various other problems. Ainan has made his computer quirky. It has a personality all of its own, with a set of responses that no other computer has.

Even after all these years, in his company, Ainan still manages to surprise me. He has never had a single computer programming lesson. He has never been to a computer class. Yet, he has taught himself, from online files, how to get his computer to behave in a personalized manner. He is programming the responses he wants from it.

As I watch him teach himself things no-one has ever ventured to teach him and master them with what seems effortless ease, I come to the conclusion that, if every child was like Ainan, schools would be entirely superfluous. A child like Ainan doesn't need a school to learn anything - they just need books (or the internet equivalent) and their own innate curiosity.

I am reminded that, when Ainan was six, he taught himself Chemistry, from the internet. Here he is, then, again, teaching himself some programming skills - also from the internet.

A resourceful child needs only a net connection (or a well-stocked library) to educate themselves. I don't see in what way schools are superior to the process I observe in Ainan. At his age, school would not yet even have started to teach Chemistry or programming - yet Ainan is quite able to learn these things on his own, already. School, perhaps, only has utility for those unable to teach themselves. Those who are, however, are probably hampered, rather than enabled by the requirements of school.

To date, almost everything Ainan knows has been learnt at home - much of it by himself. School plays little part in his education.

Back to the topic in hand: mercifully, he has not, yet, booby trapped my computer with any quirky behaviour - but I rather enjoy watching the things that his does, when one tries to interact with it in a normal way.

It is good to see him add another area of skill to his repertoire. He seems to be laying down all the key skills he would need to be scientifically and technically proficient, as an adult - and he is making the selections himself.

By the time, he reaches the age when schools actually begin teaching the skills he is acquiring, he will already be expert in all of them. It would almost be funny, if it wasn't so sad. You see, schools should really allow kids like Ainan to develop when they want to - and not put them on a "go-slow" programme, which would bore them.

Luckily, Ainan has his own solution: it is called an internet connection, a pile of books and lots of curiosity.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Patrick Swayze's pancreatic cancer.

Patrick Swayze has pancreatic cancer, stage iv. Now, this is probably not news to most of my readers, but I thought his situation worth commenting on, in one aspect.

Patrick Swayze was diagnosed last year with stage iv pancreatic cancer. This is a terminal diagnosis. Only 1% of patients with this degree of disease are alive five years later. Thus, it could be said, that Patrick Swayze is very, very unlikely to survive very long. However, apparently he has already outlasted his doctor's estimate of his longevity by 100% (his doctor had given him six months).

Well, that is Patrick Swayze's health situation. It doesn't look good, but I wish him well. What drew my attention, though, was not that he had cancer but how he was coping with it. Patrick Swayze is doing what I consider to be quite unusual: he is working, as an actor, throughout his treatment. He is playing FBI agent Charlie Barker, in The Beast, a new tv show shooting in Chicago. So, despite having what most doctors would say was a terminal illness, he is working 12 hour days as an actor.

This tells me something special. Whatever one might think about Patrick Swayze's work and life (and I admit I haven't given it much thought), it does say that he is doing what he loves most. Here is a man who is spending what could be his last months, WORKING, as an actor. Think about that. How many of us would spend our last months working at the jobs we presently do. Ask yourself that question: if you had been told by your doctor that you had six months left to live, would YOU spend them at your workplace? Or would you find another way to spend your time?

Many of us would spend that time with our families, tidying up our affairs. Patrick Swayze has chosen to spend this time, perhaps his only time left, working on a TV set. For me, that means that Patrick Swayze must have chosen the perfect life for himself. He must be living what he most deeply wants to do. Otherwise, he would have found another way to spend these months, than at work.

Whether or not Patrick Swayze survives, therefore, there is an example in his life story for us all. Live your live as you would live it if you were dying. In other words, do what is most special to you, NOW...do what you would choose to spend your last months on, NOW...for these months may very well be your last months. One never knows on such matters.

Patrick Swayze is, no doubt, happy in what he does. He has made the choice to pursue acting despite the prospect of imminent death. That is a sign that however long or short Patrick Swayze's life might be, (he is 55) that he has chosen a good life for himself.

Can we all say the same?

How would you spend your last six months? If the answer is not at work, then that work is not truly you. The work you do does not fully and deeply express who you are. However, if you answered that you would continue working in your present job until you could work no longer, then you are living an ideal life, for you.

I would be interested in people's personal perspectives on this situation. How would you spend your last six months: would you continue doing what you are doing now, or would you change your life utterly?

If you would change it, perhaps that is the life you should now be living anyway.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Singapore: A Paparazzi Free Zone

Singapore is a paparazzi free zone. Keep it that way.

It may seem strange to my readers in other developed nations to speak of a paparazzi free nation - but Singapore is one. Here, there are no hordes of aggressive photographers chasing celebrities everywhere they go. Here there are no eager snappers waiting outside expensive restaurants and nightclubs to catch a shot of a star. Here there are no long-lensed privacy breakers, taking pictures on the beaches of underdressed superstars. No. In Singapore there is such a thing as privacy for the famous. I suggest that Singapore keeps it that way.

As I write, there is outrage in the Chinese world at paparazzi photographs of actress Zhang Ziyi, sunbathing topless on a private beach in St. Bart's with her partner, Vivo Nevo, an Israeli investor. Now, firstly, I must object to these photographs for one good reason: the private beach is actually OWNED by Vivo Nevo - so what were the paparazzi doing taking shots of someone, at home, on their own property? It really strikes me as invasive.

It was clear from the way that the famous couple behaved in the photographs that neither was aware that they were being observed. In some sense, therefore, a private moment with a loved one has been stolen from them, commercialized and used to make money for some soul-less paparazzi with no respect for the lives of others.

In Singapore, such things don't happen. I have never heard of a paparazzi style "stolen photograph" appearing in the media here, or elsewhere. Since 1999 when I moved here, I have never heard of such a photographer being active or such photographs being taken. There is, in fact, an almost total media silence regarding celebrities in Singapore. The only times celebrities appear in the news here is when they want to be - ie. they are promoting an album, book, film etc. This is a good thing. Just because someone is famous that should not mean that they are forever denied the pleasures of a private life. A life is a life - and everyone of us should have the right to spend whatever portion of it we wish, in privacy.

Alarmingly, however, I have heard, that someone in the Singapore media toyed with the idea of starting a paparazzi culture here. There was talk of setting up an official database of "targets", who could rightfully be pursued and photographed. Fortunately, the project never took off. I really hope it stays that way, for the last thing Singapore needs is to succumb to the lowest of the low aspects of other cultures. The habitual and unwanted invasion of privacy that paparazzis represent is the worst aspect of Western media culture. No "star", of any kind, could ever want such a thing. It most certainly does not enhance their lives to be subject to such ongoing random scrutiny. Indeed, it takes a very valuable thing away from such famous people: the right to be alone, the right to be unobserved, the right to peace and quiet. I don't think that any mature culture should penalize famous people in this way, just because they have done something to distinguish themselves. Being distinctive, is not something that should be punished with being forever under observation.

One of the things I like about Singapore is that it does NOT have a paparazzi "culture". There is something refreshing about a place that doesn't place the famous under permanent scrutiny. There is also something about it, that the rest of the world should learn from. In this respect, the WHOLE WORLD should be like Singapore. There should be no paparazzi photographers anywhere in the world. Indeed, to behave like a paparazzi and steal private moments, should be an offence punishable by very large fines (millions of dollars are sometimes made from such photographs, so the fines should be in the millions) and long prison sentences. This should be the norm around the world. No-one should be subjected to unwelcome intrusion upon their lives, famous or not.

Well done, Singapore, on getting something right. Please keep it that way. Singapore should remain an island where the famous and the anonymous have the same right to privacy, in public.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The ever-changing face of China.

We live in strange times. Things are not as they were when I was in school.

Recently, I heard from a teacher friend of mine (from America, but working in Singapore) about a young Chinese student in his class (from the People's Republic of China). She is a tall girl of about 15 or 16. A couple of weeks ago, he saw this girl not paying attention in class. Instead, she was attending to a brochure. It was a very strange kind of brochure. In it there were numbered pictures of women's eyes, of all shapes and sizes. That was it...just pictures of eyes.

"What is this?" he enquired, of his distracted student.

She looked up at this giant gentle bear of a man (the only thing that distinguishes him from Santa Claus is the absence of a red jacket) and remarked, ever-so-casually, "I am choosing the eyes I want."

"You mean plastic surgery?", "Santa Claus" was aghast.

"Yes. I want new eyes." She paused momentarily, to find her choice. "I want these ones.", she said, her finger tapping the glossy paper.

My friend studied the selected eyes and was even more appalled. The chosen eyes were just like those of a Japanese anime schoolgirl: unfeasibly big and round. They belonged on a stylized cartoon, not a tall Chinese girl.

"You don't need to change your eyes: the ones you have are beautiful already! Don't do this!", he urged, to an unpersuadable, young girl.

"These ones, wouldn't suit you.", he said, with certainty.

She wasn't in the mood to listen and held onto her brochure for the rest of the class.

I haven't mentioned it, but she is quite a big girl. To have the eyes of a Japanese anime schoolgirl, set against her big form, would just look ridiculous. I think that was my friend's immediate understanding.

This girl thought that she could give herself the appeal of a Japanese anime schoolgirl, simply by paying a plastic surgeon to resculpt her face. No doubt, after she had had her eyes done, she would want her nose done. Then perhaps she would extend the work to other parts of her body. It could even become a lifelong obsession as it does with some women, forever changing their bodies as others might change clothes.

What struck my friend, and strikes me, is how young this girl is. She is just 15 or 16, but already wants to have surgery to "correct" her appearance. She is not fully grown. Her final form is not fixed. Yet, already she wants to go under the knife. She seems to think that it would benefit her in all sorts of ways.

I wonder if there is an age-limit for such operations? There should be. No teenage girl under 18 should be permitted an operation that permanently alters their appearance. They should, at least, have to wait until their final growth is done. (Except in cases of disfigurement from disease, genetic or otherwise - but that is a different matter. This girl is not disfigured - she is just a fairly typical, if tall, Chinese girl.)

When I was this girl's age, I don't think any of my contemporaries were altering themselves through plastic surgery. Now, it seems, whole nations are going under the knife. It is quite bizarre. There is much, I think, to be said for a natural appearance. To my eyes, that usually creates a good, balanced appearance. Nature tends not to put the eyes of a Japanese anime schoolgirl on a tall, big Chinese girl, on whom they would look ridiculous. However, if she gets her way, that is exactly what this young girl will get.

It is all a bit sad. It shows that young people today do not accept themselves as they are. Or, perhaps, other people do not accept them, as they are and so they feel under pressure to change. I feel that those who embark on such a journey of cosmetic surgical alteration may find that they were happiest at the beginning of the journey before anything was done. Once they have had an alteration made, they are really going to have to live with it. I am not sure that this Chinese girl will be any happier with the eyes of a very different kind of girl on her face. It is quite possible that she will look much worse for the change.

Is this an issue in your country? Are young women (and perhaps men) altering their appearance surgically? Is it common? What kinds of procedures are they having done? Do children have such operations? Is it a trend among teenage girls?

Any observations you might have would be interesting to hear. Thanks.

If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

The two-legged alarm clock.

I have a two-legged alarm clock in my house. His name is Tiarnan.

Tiarnan, two, is an early riser. He wakes up on his own, all bright and perky. Recently, he has taken to checking up on his Dad during weekdays. If I am not up, by the time he is, he will quietly come into my room.

"Daddy! Get up for work!" he will say, in a quiet voice that is, I suppose, calculated to wake me, but not mummy. This is a bit difficult, of course, but he tries his best.

The first time he did it, about three weeks ago, I was really pleasantly surprised. It showed me that he was thinking of my day and what I had to do - and had thought of something he could do, to help.

He has done so several times since, coming into my room at about the time I should be up and getting ready, to check up on me. I find it a sweet way to wake in the morning.

I wonder what he thinks "work" is? He knows it involves leaving the house and going somewhere...but I wonder what that is, in his imagination? He has understood this much: that it must occur at a particular time and that Daddy needs to leave to get to it.

Interestingly, he has never tried to wake me for work during a weekend. Perhaps this is coincidence, or perhaps he has already picked up on the difference between the two.

In some ways, he is rather more effective than a real alarm clock. If he starts to talk to me, I really have to talk back. A real alarm clock, too often, gets switched off and ignored. You can't really ignore your own two year old son trying to wake you up.

Thank you, Tiarnan, for having the thoughtfulness to check on me in the morning.

I wonder if he will always be an early bird, waking before everyone else? Or will he become like the rest of us, snug in our beds and loathe to leave them?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Cambridge University: an awkward truth or two.

Cambridge University is a fabled institution. Its renown is such that no-one in the developed world is unaware of it. Everyone knows how fierce the competition is for admission – and so everyone knows that, to have gone there, demonstrates a high level of ability, of some kind. This wins respect for its graduates.

It is a beautiful city and it is right to speak of its “dreaming spires”…but is it really as idyllic, as portrayed? Is it really a world of leisurely drifting down a gentle river, through an enchanted city?

No. Unfortunately, Cambridge is populated by people and people have a way of being imperfect. In some cases, they are SO imperfect that I had to wonder how they got into the University in the first place – and I don’t mean as students: I mean as academic staff. Some of the staff really, really shouldn’t have been there.

Cambridge University has a supposedly supportive academic system. There are lectures to attend, as usual, but there are also what are known as “supervisions”. These are sessions with an academic with a small group of fellow students, often no more than three or four students. Usually, there is one supervision, per week, per subject. By subject, I don’t mean individual topic, I mean a whole area like “Mathematics”, “Psychology” etc. The course I followed at Cambridge, Natural Sciences, involved choosing from a range of subjects, each of which was pursued with the workload that a single subject degree might attract at another University. In the first year, there were four subjects, in the second year, three and in the final year, one.

One year, at Cambridge, I was studying the History and Philosophy of Science, as an option. I thought this a humanistic break from the other matters I had been studying. My supervisor for this topic was a young American academic called Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick. (The one now with Technology Vision Group (TVG)). He was what every British person expects an American to be: quite large, confident, charming and seemingly nice. I got the impression that he devoted a lot of energy to appearances. However, appearances, can often be deceptive.

Now, it was the custom for supervisors to set an essay each week, which we were to do before the next supervision, hand it in, and have it marked. Usually, one expected the essay to be related to the course in some way, so that we could consider its concepts at depth and come to a better understanding. Sometimes, however, it was clear that our supervisors were unsure exactly what was in the course. On these occasions, they would do what Dr Robert Lee Kilpatrick did one day: he said: “Write about whatever you like.”

As a young student, I used to actually like a request to “write about whatever you like” – because it allowed me to be creative and that was just what I liked to be. Thus, I didn’t really mind when a supervisor, clearly lacking in any ideas, imagination or understanding of the topic they were supervising, didn’t have any notion of what he/she should set us to write and so suggested that we write whatever we wanted. I was somewhat naïve, at that age, and didn’t realize that one of the primary reasons for an academic to ask their students to generate the topic is that the students would thus be generating ideas for an academic possessed of a barren mind. Upon reflection, however, it does seem to me that those academics who were in this habit, were those who were least creative, productive or, well, academic. They were also, universally, unprepared to teach their classes: none of them had done any background work, for the class they were supposedly to teach. Dr Robert Lee Kilpatrick was no exception in this regard. Yes, he was charming…but sometimes he really didn’t know what to do to give something worthwhile to his students.

So, that week, I went off and thought of a topic to write on. I found something of interest to me and began to write. My thoughts flowed freely and I found that the more I wrote, the more I understood, the deeper went my insights and theorizing. My pen rushed on, expressing the birth of what amounted to a thesis. I wrote with enthusiasm and passion, driven by the urge to create – something with which, I was later to find out, Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick had no familiarity or appreciation.

Finally, I was done. It was over 22 sheets of paper, written on both sides. He had asked me to “write whatever I liked” and that was just what I had done. I had written a considered, thoughtful, original, insightful piece on early scientific/medical thinking.

A week had passed. It was time for Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick’s supervision.

I went to his office at the appointed time. The door was ajar. So, we gathered inside his office, sitting, waiting for him to arrive.

Time passed. First minutes, then tens of minutes. We began to wonder what had happened to him.

After about half an hour of waiting for him, we finally decided that we might as well leave for it was clear that Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick hadn’t even bothered to turn up for his own lesson.

I left him a note, which none of the other students had the courage to join me in writing (lest their handwriting be recognized, I suppose).

I remember the words still:

“We are here.
Where are you?
Now you are here,
we are not.
So, there!”

The next week I handed in the essay. Cheekily, he was rather irritated that we hadn’t gone looking for him, the week before. Apparently, he had been hiding out in the staff room. He had waited there, throughout his own lesson, expecting us to come looking for him. At least, that was his excuse. I found it very curious the way he expressed himself. He made it seem like WE were at fault, for not finding him. It never seemed to occur to him that it was his own responsibility to turn up for his own lessons. I found it most bizarre. I didn’t protest to him directly. I just listened to the self-justifying nonsense coming out of his mouth. Here was a teacher too lazy to even turn up for his own lessons, making it seem like his students were too lazy to spend their lesson looking for him all over the building. Amazing.

It takes a strange bent of mind, so adept at blaming others, to find his students at fault for his own failing.

Anyway, I handed in the essay. He didn’t set another one.

It was the last time I ever saw him.

During the week that followed this “teacher”, made an official complaint about me, to the senior academics at my College. He said that I had “written an essay of inappropriate length”. He didn’t explain whether it was too long or too short. He just said it was “inappropriate”. He further complained that I had upset a fellow academic Dr. Barbara Politynska. Now, I thought that was a very interesting way of twisting the facts. You see, Dr. Barbara Politynska had upset me, not the other way around.

In earlier days, I had told Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick of my astonishment at the actions of Dr. Barbara Politynska, who was my Psychology “supervisor”. She had done just what he had done and set an essay by saying: “Write about whatever you like”. She too shared his apparent lack of creativity, lack of preparation for lessons and unfamiliarity with the courses being taught.

Just as I had with Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick, I took the opportunity of being set an open essay to write a creative one. I wrote about what interested me, which, that week, was on the matter of intelligence. I critiqued what I thought were biases in the work of some academics and explained what I thought was wrong with their analyses, among other things, in my essay. I wrote, as I was later to do for Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick, with passion and enthusiasm and involvement with my subject.

Imagine, then, my surprise, when I received my essay back after being marked. The essay had clearly been crumpled up and thrown away. I don’t just mean casually crumpled, I mean, really, really aggressively, crumpled. It was covered in fine wrinkles. Even the wrinkles had wrinkles. Even more bizarrely, realizing that she would have to hand it back to me, she had ironed it flat again, which made it legible, once more – but couldn’t obscure the history of crumpling which it had endured.

There was more. In the margins she had written nasty little remarks. One has stuck with me to this day: “Is this a moral thesis or an extract from the Sun?”

The Sun, in case you don’t know, is a downmarket tabloid newspaper that carries a half-naked girl on page three and is known for its strongly expressed opinions.

Perhaps you might like to make the effort of imagining what it was like for me, a rather sensitive young student, to be received with such hostility on two consecutive occasions on which I wrote with creativity, passion, enthusiasm and commitment.

The moment when Dr. Barbara Politynska handed the essay back to me was the moment that Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick later referred to as me upsetting her. You see, Dr. Barbara Politynska actually had tears, unshed, in her eyes, when she gave me back the essay. She said, then, that I was “precocious”. I wondered then, as I wonder now, why on Earth a student being “precocious” should have distressed her so. Yes, I suppose she was upset…but she had no right to be, for I had done nothing to upset her, except write an essay that was “whatever I liked”, as requested. The one who was rightfully upset on seeing the state of his finely crumpled, sarcastically commented upon essay, was me.

Yet, Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick had reported it as if I was the wrongdoer, even though, as I had told the story to him I had expressed my profound amazement that she should have behaved as she had.

So, I was in trouble with the College authorities for “crimes” which seemed rather absurd. Both “crimes” related to the fact that I had been creative. I had actually had the cheek to write two essays, based on my own thoughts, for two academics, on their request. I had not copied my thoughts from other sources. I had not expressed secondhand opinions. I had actually written my own thoughts, with passion, creativity and enthusiasm – and just look at the reaction of this ancient University.

In that moment, I was confronted with an unspoken law of Cambridge University: Thou Shalt Not Think For Oneself. At least, that is the essential meaning of the actions of these two academics when confronted with an original essay.

My College launched some kind of investigation. They took this matter very seriously – though I couldn’t quite work out, for myself, what exactly I had done wrong. I had written a thesis length essay, because I had been asked to “write whatever I liked” – but this was deemed “inappropriate”. Thus, it seemed, I COULDN’T actually write what I liked – for I had, and he didn’t like it.

I was subject to the across-the-table gaze of my Director of Studies and another senior academic, as they grilled me over my “offence”.

I don’t really think I ever got the chance to put my view of things across. I was a little too shocked by the proceedings to do so, effectively. I was actually dumbfounded to receive such official hostility, simply for being creative. For that, basically was the issue here. Neither of my supervisors had received my essays well. Both had responded aggressively to them. Apparently, the concept of free speech hadn’t reached the halls of Cambridge University. Only slavish copies of official sources were allowed to be written, seemed to be the message.

It was decided that I would be assigned a new Psychology supervisor. I was never assigned a new History and Philosophy of Science supervisor – and I never saw my old one again. The Psychology supervisor was rather slow in being replaced – in fact, many weeks passed, before one was assigned.

I really didn’t like the way that supervision was conducted. Instead of there being three or four other students, there was just me, with him. He was a very serious man who didn’t introduce himself. So, I was left to guess his name. He had a very strange attitude towards me: he seemed to treat me as some kind of criminal. He walked around the room for most of the supervision, as if wary of me. He spoke little. He seemed to be evaluating me, as if looking for signs of imaginary anti-social behaviours he had been alerted to. All of this, on his part, really put me off participating much. It wasn’t a success. Happily, I never saw him again.

Thus, I passed the academic year without a supervisor in both History and Philosophy of Science and Psychology.

What really gets to me, after all this time, is that Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick NEVER RETURNED MY THESIS LENGTH ESSAY TO ME. HE KEPT IT.

I had put considerable effort into that essay – but I never got the chance to read it ever again. He never returned it.

I have a fair idea why he was so annoyed on receiving my essay. He was just too damned lazy to mark it. He had already shown himself to be too lazy to turn up to his own lessons – so I think it is a fair guess that he was just too lazy to read the essay I had written, or, at least, mark it. Yet, that was precisely his job, for which he was paid. He was supposed to read that essay, comment on it, let me know what was good, what was not and give me some general feedback on the merit of its ideas. He didn’t do that. He just kept the essay so that I would never benefit from the work I had put in to it.

Twenty years later, I wrote an email to him reminding him of the essay, and asking him to return it if he still had it in his possession. I did so, because I think it is important for any writer or thinker to maintain a record of their past work, for everything builds on what has gone before and all is part of the whole. Besides, I really just wanted to read it again.

He didn’t reply.

Cambridge University was not what I had hoped it would be. At least for me, on every occasion on which I showed passion, creativity and enthusiasm and actually created anything from it, I attracted great hostility from the staff there. It was a form of conditioning. If I was creative, they were hostile. If I expressed my thoughts, they were hostile. I quickly learnt that Cambridge was not open to creative thinkers at all. At least, I was not treated well, on quite a few occasions. After a while, I shut down and stopped expressing myself there: after all, what was the point? If I wrote what I wanted to write, I would only attract hostility of a high order. I grew detached from the University. It was not a place for creative minds; it was a place for people who spent their lives rearranging the thoughts of others. At least, that is the impression I got from it. If one’s essays conformed to expectation, did nothing new, and contained only reworkings of sources, they were acceptable. However, if they did something new, or sought to express their own viewpoint, the welcome would be hostile.

Perhaps I was unlucky. Perhaps other people had better experiences than I did. But, you know what? Neither Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick, nor Dr. Barbara Politynska had any right to have been Cambridge academics in the first place. Neither had the right attitude towards their students and neither conducted themselves appropriately where I was concerned. You just don’t react in a hostile manner to a student who has made a creative effort. That is the worst thing an academic can do to a young mind.

Just imagine how I felt, all those years ago, to have been treated so, simply because I wrote what I thought. It completely put me off academia. I turned away from it utterly as a reaction to the way I was treated. It is only, now, two decades later, with an academic son to attend to, that my attention turns once more to academia.

However, I never want any of my children to go through what I went through. I never want them to attend an institution where students are greeted with hostility if they are creative. Wherever they go, it must be a place that appreciates the “precocious” – and doesn’t have disturbed academics with tears in their eyes because someone wrote an essay that expressed a thought or two. It must be place where the teachers are not so lazy that they won’t turn up for their own classes. It must be a place where the teachers actually make an effort to read and mark, what their students have made an effort to write.

Now, Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick is involved with something called the Technology Vision Group (TVG). As far as I can see, it raises money for biotech and life science ventures. His doctorate is not, as you might expect, in Medicine or Life science, but in the History of Science. His only academic work listed on Google Scholar is: “Nature’s Schools: The Hunterian Revolution in London Hospital Medicine 1780-1825”. It has received just two citations, giving him an H-index of 1. H-index is a means of ranking the impact and influence of academics. To understand this score, consider this: a successful academic will have a score that increases by one, every year. An outstanding academic will have a score that increases by two every year. A truly brilliant academic, will have a score that increases by three every year. I understand that this work is his PhD thesis.

Dr. Barbara Politynska has since left Cambridge. I believe she returned to Poland. I understand that, for many years after her tearful day with my essay in her hand, that she was heard to complain about me, in self-justifying ways.

I had looked forward to Cambridge, as a child, as a place where, finally, I would find academic peers and academic acceptance. Instead, I found narrow-minded, unaccepting, aggressive, mendacious, disturbed, Machiavellian, hostile, uncreative, plagiaristic, lazy, rude, detached, unprepared, ignorant, academics, who really, really, really didn’t care about the students. Of course, not all of them were like that. I have written of one who was not, in another post. However, that some were like that, is just unacceptable. Cambridge University needs to have a higher standard not for its students, but for its staff. Too many of them, should never have been there in the first place.

No student, anywhere in the world, should be subject to disciplinary action simply because they wrote an essay. Yet, that was what happened to me at Cambridge. I wrote an essay of “inappropriate length” – and was subject to a disciplinary hearing, of some kind, in consequence. What kind of mad, backwards thinking, kind of “University” is that? I created something and was punished for it. In fact, it happened twice in a row from two different teachers – one crumpled my essay, the other complained about it.

In a University that had its priorities right – that is, the support of its students and the support of creativity and academic growth – both of those academics would have been fired, AT ONCE. For, neither was fulfilling their basic role of teaching or nurturing. Both were behaving as if the creativity of their charge offended them. They resented it.

Anyway, this leads me to make a recommendation. If you or your child are creative, I really would recommend that you do not allow them to go to Cambridge University. It is possible that it has changed since my day – but I doubt it. Places like that tend to have institutional momentum. It is probably, today, much as it was in my day. It is not a place to be if you are the kind of person able to write a thesis length essay, simply because it is “whatever you like”.

A creative person should not be subject to the hostility I received, from Dr. Robert Lee Kilpatrick and Dr. Barbara Politynska, simply for expressing thoughts on paper. So, make sure your child doesn’t go through the same thing.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)