Some thoughts on "Bitter Pill"

I know this is a few weeks late, but I was dealing with finals then enjoying spring break.

In the March 4, 2013 issue of Time, the entire feature section is devoted to one article, "Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills are Killing us" by Steven Brill. This received a whole bunch of publicity so I see no need to summarize it here. (It can be read for free online at the Time website.) It does an excellent job of starting a different conversation regarding the healthcare industry in this country: namely, why does it cost so much.

I find his expose to be valuable and well-informed, though there are a few questions I have after reading it.

1. Brill spent seven months researching this article, so I assume he looked at more than just the handful of bills in the report. I would guess that he examined many bills that showed this same trend and the ones featured in the article are just illustrative examples. Yet if the bills were incredibly varied in amounts then this article does little to address it.

2. Brill examines mainly non-profit hospitals. In his examples, these hospitals have giant profits and CEOs with salaries that could make Fortune 500 companies jealous. So it is evident there are problems with the non-profit set-up. However, I wonder what this looks like at for-profit hospitals? Would they display the same problems or would they, somehow, manage to provide comparable care at a lesser cost?

3. Brill spends only a short portion of his article in suggesting solutions to this issue; most of these solutions are directed at government, insurance companies, and the healthcare industry. I would like to know what advice for the general public who will most likely face this issues at some point he could offer. It's great if we can get the whole system changed for the better, but in the mean time what can the person facing thousands for an emergency room visit for a stomachache do?

IQP Awards, Part II

2 weeks ago I submitted an editorial to The Towers regarding the President's IQP Awards that appeared in the January 29, 2013 edition of the paper.

Rick Vaz, Dean of Interdisciplinary and Global Studies, the department responsible for arranging and overseeing the overseas IQPs wrote a response. His editorial appeared in the February 12, 2013 issue (Volume 103 Issue 15) of The Towers. Again, since The Towers website has not updated, I have scanned his response and am including it here.

Edit 2/14: It appears that Towers has updated its website and you can now read Dean Vaz's response there.

IQP Awards

So 2 weeks ago, I submitted an editorial to The Towers regarding the President's IQP Awards. The main focus was on how the winner is seemingly always from Africa. Since The Towers website has not updated since January 22, I am posting it here to share. This editorial originally appeared on the January 29, 2013 Issue (Volume 103, Issue 13).

The Problems of the President’s IQP Award

Is there a formula for success?

Each January a group of outstanding IQP projects is selected as finalists for the President’s IQP Award and the groups are welcomed back to present to a panel of esteemed judges. These judges then determine which of the projects was “outstanding in focusing on the relationships among science, technology and the needs of society” and selects a winner (President’s IQP Awards, n.d.).  The finalists are selected from the pool of applicants, 44 this year, and are the projects that are “superior in conception, execution, and presentation” are selected (President’s IQP Awards, n.d.). There are no pre-determined categories for the awards, so all any applicant has to go on is whether or not they completed a good IQP (President’s IQP Awards, n.d.).

This award recognizes the best out of a year’s worth of IQPs, and to win it is a wonderful achievement. To work on the real-world, socially informed IQP, especially one overseas in a completely different culture, is an extraordinary privilege granted to WPI students. The skills learned are invaluable in an increasingly international world and experiences gained while working on the project can be life-changing. Every IQP is distinctive and they all address important social issues through interdisciplinary team-based problem solving and any project, even if completed on campus, can be submitted for consideration in the President’s IQP Award.

Yet there is a general feeling among students that an IQP must be completed overseas and directly benefit some disadvantaged group in order to win the award – mainly, if the project is not done in Africa working with the poor in informal settlements then it cannot win the President’s IQP Award. This feeling is not unjustified, as is evidenced by this year’s award finalists and past winners.

The finalists for the 2012 award were projects completed in Namibia (two), Cape Town, Puerto Rico, and Bangkok, with honorable mentions from Melbourne (shocking!) and Cape Town. Winners in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2007, and 2004 were projects completed in Namibia; 2008 in Cape Town; the 2006 award was shared by a group from Namibia and one from WPI; the 2005 award was split between groups from Thailand and Puerto Rico; the 2003 winner was completed in Denmark (President’ IQP Awards, n.d.). Records previous to 2003 appear unavailable.

So, out of nine awards awarded to eleven projects: seven were completed in Africa, 73% were completed in under-developed areas, and only 18% were completed in western nations (Puerto Rico does not definitively fit into either category). If second- and third-place winners are included there are 20 awards presented to 38 projects, with only 58% completed in under-developed areas. 

Table 1: President's IQP Award winner since 2003 (President's IQP Awards, n.d.).

Year	First Place	Second Place	Third Place
2011	Namibia	-	-
2010	Namibia	Denmark, South Africa, Thailand, WPI	-
2009	Namibia	Thailand, Nantucket, South Africa, WPI	-
2008	South Africa	Hong Kong, Denmark, London, Namibia	-
2007	Namibia	Boston, Namibia	Boston, Thailand
2006	Namibia, WPI	-	-
2005	Thailand, Puerto Rico	Namibia, WPI	Venice
2004	Namibia	Namibia, Thailand	Puerto Rico, Thailand
2003	Denmark	Thailand	Boston, Costa Rica, Namibia

These numbers show that there is roughly equal chance for a project to be named a finalist whether or not it is it is focused on an under-developed area. However, there appears to be a bias towards projects completed in under-developed areas when only first-place winners are considered. So to win the President’s IQP Award, the best chance is to go to Africa and complete a hands-on project that directly benefits disadvantaged individuals.

If acknowledged as an actual issue, then a desirable course of action would be to change how this award works. Each IQP is registered to a certain division from this list (Available IQPs, 2007):

41. Technology and Environment
42. Energy and Resources
43. Health Care and Technology
44. Urban and Environmental Planning
45. Science and Technology: Policy and Management
46. Social Studies of Science and Technology
47. Safety Analysis and Liability
48. Humanistic Studies of Technology
49. Economic Growth, Stability, and Development
50. Social and Human Services
51. Education in a Technological Society
52. Law and Technology
53. Historic and Artistic Preservation Technology

While the distinction of the award would be greatly reduced if a semi-finalist were required from each category, these 13 divisions could be grouped into thematic clusters and one project from each group would then be selected from all the submissions registered to those categories as a finalist by a committee, as is currently done. These finalist projects would then be presented at an awards ceremony. A panel of judges would then choose at least one first-place winner from the projects that were presented. This type of system would provide high recognition of a project from any division that is deemed outstanding while still showcasing the best of the IQPs. The current method of awarding the first place winner would not change, leaving the decision to a panel of judges to choose the most outstanding IQP of the year.

Whether or not any change is made, there should be a more specific, or more publicized, criteria for the award. Currently the only readily accessible information regarding award criteria is given in the opening paragraph of this article. The judges presumably have some set of criteria they use to choose the award winner. These criteria should be made known to the applicants and should give equal opportunity to all projects that fulfill all of the IQP objectives and outcomes to an outstanding level.

Many students joke about this African project bias, but it is more apparent than many may have thought. Without reform, the President’s IQP Award unfairly favors those projects that work directly with under-privileged individuals to produce a tangible result. A change to this award should be thought about as we congratulate the Namibia team that received the 2012 President’s IQP Award. 

References

President’s IQP Awards. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute website: http://www.wpi.edu/about/awards/iqp.html  

Available IQPs. (2007, August 22). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from Projects Program website: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Projects/viewiqps.html 

What's wrong with adopting from home?

An article in this week's Time, "The Baby Deficit" discusses how "changing attitudes about international adoption are creating heartbreak for American families." The article tells the story of one family and their challenges in adopting a child from Kyrgyzstan with a secondary focus on the amount of international children adopted by American families. Many countries are enacting policies to curb and prevent adoptions of their children by foreign citizens. Most claim the halt to adoptions is in order to reduce the corruption that is often present and improve the quality for the children. Others may be doing it for more political reasons.

American adopted 22,991 foreign children in 2004 and 9,319 in 2011. That is a large number. I would be curious to know how many American children are adopted by American families in each of those years. Not having this information means this post is just unsubstantiated thoughts, but perhaps at least some of them are merited.

It seems that more families are looking abroad to expand their families, when they are unable or unwilling to begin their own. I wonder why they do not first look to this country. I have heard that the regulations make it difficult to do so and there are certain rights granted to the biological parents that could allow them to change their minds about adoption. Yet when adopting a foreign child can take many years, trips to the nation, and tens of thousands of dollars in costs, I wonder if the issues with the American system is just perceived.

Since 1999, 66,630 children were adopted into the United State from China, with Russia (45,112), Guatemala (29,731), South Korea (18,605), and Ethiopia (11,524) following. Two of these nations are still developing and two have severe ideological differences with the US. Prospective parents interviewed in the article state that they are adopting the children from foreign countries to give them an improved life and others invoke calls from scripture.

Not all of the adopted children are doomed to a life of poverty and terribleness. Many could probably grow up quite fine in their own cultures without any problems. Yet it is how some people view these cultures that results in the general categorization that all these foreign babies have no chance of a good, productive life. But this view is extremely skewed by American standards and is rather reminiscent of late colonial times. People looking to adopt should look first to the home front - there are plenty of children here who need a good family to escape from poverty and grow into good citizens. The challenge, then, is to realize that America is not perfect and there are problems here too. Just because one does not think about them does not mean they do not exist.

Courting a Courtship

Browsing Facebook this morning I came across a post from a friend who shared a New York Times article on courtship and the struggles of young adults and dating. Reading through it I had some thoughts, or maybe just some hopes, that this problem may be over-exaggerated and isn't as dire as the article makes it out to be.

I will not argue that in this ever more technological age we, as individuals, are growing ever suckier at communicating in meaningful ways. Sure, text messages and email are fantastic developments, but there are times when a hand-written note, phone call, or face-to-face in-person conversation is the right way to go (an outrageous thought, isn't it). And I would hope that this commitment to being a little bit better would be no where more prevalent than in the dating scene.

Courtesy of Landmark Report's
"Ask Justin."

The article sights hook-up culture as one of the major reasons. Prevalent mostly in college life and mostly fueled by alcohol. I think, though, that most people taking part know it is not a romantic relationship in the traditional sense. Being able, as in individual, to make that distinction is important. That ability should then show up should one decided that are looking for more than just sex with a (sometimes) attractive individual.

Physical attraction is one thing, and is definitely important. Yet there are far more components to an individual that get noticed and considered when looking for this real partner, when looking to maybe grow up and settle down. And this is part of where courtship and actual dates are important.

By no means would it be beneficial for our society to return to Medieval levels of wooing a princess - that just is not practical or desired in today's world. And no one is arguing that to correctly court you need to spend a ton of money for a Broadway show and dinner at the fanciest French restaurant in town. You can go on an actual date. In my opinion, which I hope is shared by others, it does not matter the physical location so much as what is experienced while there. There is some bottom line of classiness required. No one wants to go on a first, meaningful date to KFC; Applebee's is perfectly acceptable though.

Courtship is not dead; it's most recent form may be on its last legs. The acts of courting a woman, dating, and forming a relationship will change as the times, cultural standards, and people change. And this is a good thing. A move towards texting "yo, lets hang out 2nite" is not guaranteed. I would advocate a mix of the old with the new. Be progressive, but be classy and bits of old-fashioned. No one will complain about having a door held for them; many would about the male always paying for everything. A first date is an important get-to-know you step. Make it such. It should be just about you two. Then again, we do lack conversation skills so maybe the group hangouts with text invites should be how everyone determines their significant others.