As I walked around the Lecture Hall, Commons, and Cabaret in the Macaulay Building, I felt quite overwhelmed by the amount of posters there were. I looked for posters that caught my eye and looked pretty. If they were nice-looking, then I asked about some more info on their work.

Although the poster I am talking about wasn’t the most beautiful of the bunch, the research and whole project was/is super interesting. The Brooklyn College group did their research on restaurants and what they tell us about socioeconomic status in three different areas of Kings County: Flatbush, Williamsburg, and Bushwick. With changing neighborhoods and controversy over “gentrification,” the group examined prices of restaurants in each of the areas to see what exactly is going on; specifically, they looked at the relationship between how much the restaurants charged and the average family incomes in each area. They sampled 25 random restaurants (not including fast food joints and chains) and then averaged out the top five entrees each location served to get a value for each place. After averaging the restaurant prices in each area, they were able to compare the data they found to 2013 income statistics. I thought that was a great way to sample the restaurants.

The group found that restaurant prices do reflect socioeconomic status (at least in the places they sampled). Bushwick and Flatbush had closely comparable statistics and Williamsburg showed higher prices and a higher income (see blow).

Restaurant Prices – Bushwick: Approx. $11, Flatbush Approx. $12, Williamsburg: Approx. $26

ACS Income Data – Bushwick: Approx. $52,000, Flatbush: Approx. $53,300, Williamsburg: Approx. $70,800

The group presented their research and data really well, so I was impressed and interested. They made me wonder about my own neighborhood and its surrounding areas as well, so maybe one day, when I have a lot of free time, I am going to try what they did. It also made me think about gentrification and changing neighborhoods, which is a really interesting thing to talk and learn about.

The “Freshman 15” has a pretty famous reputation of appearing in the form of 15 extra pounds that surface shortly after college begins. Freshmen are supposed to be so flustered and nervous when beginning college that they accidentally put on 15 pounds due to poor eating choices. However, many believe this is a myth and that the “Freshman 15” doesn’t actually happen.

At the afternoon poster session, a poster that I found really interesting, relevant, and informative aimed to test whether the “Freshman 15” was real or not. This poster, titled “A Representative Study of Baruch Students’ Diets By Grade Level” was much like my groups’ paper waste poster in the sense that they sent out surveys to students to collect data. Unlike my group who collected paper usage data, they logged number of times per week students ate fast food or ate home cooked meals. They were able to collect data from all the grade levels at Baruch, which made me a bit jealous because my group was limited in our data collecting ability.

The group that made the poster suspected that higher-grade level students would make healthier eating choices than lower grade level students, therefore claiming that the “Freshman 15” was real. Interestingly enough, their data proved them correct because they found as the grade levels progressed from college freshman to Senior, the amount of fast food consumed decreases and the amount of home cooked meals consumed increased.

I thought these findings were really relevant and useful because most people disregard the “Freshman 15” as a myth, when really it is something that happens and makes people unhealthy without them being aware of it. There are many obesity related diseases a person can get, and the “Freshman 15” can be avoided if people are aware of it and know they have to watch their eating habits and not recklessly consume junk.

In addition to this poster being very informative with lots of graphs and data, it was really colorful and the group members were able to very persuasively convey their information. I nominated this group for most interesting presentation, but they didn’t win. They’re still winners to me!

In the afternoon session, there were many posters that lined the walls and boards of the Macaulay building today and as I was walking around, I saw a lot of posters that did seem very interesting. However, I also saw a large number of posters that had many words, which we discussed in class as not that effective as a presentation. But there were few that caught my eye, which had many diagrams and limited text, such as one about measles and another about the Ebola virus.

One specific poster did catch my eye, both because of the nice color scheme as well as the amount of graphs and pictures they possessed. This was their title: “Smart Genes: Inherited Intelligence.” The authors were focusing on the extent to which intelligence was inherited. I was already interested in the topic of intelligence and differences in IQ tests and the explanations behind it. In psych class, we talked about the significance of an IQ test result and what that means to an individual. So I stood there and struck a conversation with the creators of this poster.

It was really fascinating because they discussed several proteins that played a role in determining intelligence. Although I did not get a chance to ask them how specifically they obtained their data, I saw that they determined that 20-40% of a person’s genome that correspond to intelligence is passed on into their child. Then, we both discussed the impact it has on the debate of nature vs. nurture. Many are under the misconception that intelligence has to do solely with how a person is brought up, or “nurture.” However, it is not entirely true. Since intelligence can be inherited, there is an extent to which “nature” plays a role. We also then discussed if there was any possible way that the child can inherit more of the genome coding for intelligence factors, in order to increase intelligence. It is possible today or in the near future, however, there are a multitude of risks as well as ethical dilemmas that come with it. I just thought it was different to think about intelligence in the sense that it is from your parents. So, I guess there’s more to thank them for.

The poster I selected to comment on and review ended up winning the “Judge’s Choice” award for the same reasons I chose it.

It almost became one of the posters of the “Tl;dr and Walk Away” category, but one of the extremely enthusiastic co-creators of it roped me in.

The title:“How Your Phone is Ruining Your Study Habits”

The gist:The poster creators did a correlational study between phone/laptop/phone & laptop use and procrastination.

The methods:This is the best part. These two guys just creeped on and stared at people in the City College library for hours, noting if the selected targets were phone only, laptop only, or phone & laptop users, and counted the amount of times they deviated from assignment-looking type things. Facebook? Strike one. Text messages? Strike two. Tinder? Dear Lord, strike three, and they were out.

The conclusions:Turns out, our worst fears are confirmed. Phone only, laptop only, and phone & laptop use all proved to have strong correlations with procrastination and distraction from work.

Great poster, but…

Looks like the nomophobes will have to give the phones a rest. As for those Macaulay laptops, maybe a little Self Control will suffice.

Nah, Leslie. We’ll siriously be alright.

Sorry to Candy Crush your dreams,

Alex