Author Archives: Cindy Chen

Tips for Managing Exam Stress (4/24)

Posted on by

In the table talk about health and wellness/managing exam stress, we talked about what we (and Cornell) can do better for students. While a lot of the ideas that were presented for how Cornell can do better is very unlikely to be achieved (these ideas included stuff like “get free stuff” and “get free messages”), I think we should all be held accountable for managing our own final exams stress. Finals are stressful, yes, but there are things you can do to make it less stressful for yourself, and there are things that students do that exacerbate the stress.

One tip that I have is to avoid/limit distractions. For most of this semester I have not allowed myself to watch Netflix unless it’s a Friday night, and I mainly stuck to podcasts as my main source of entertainment. I know some people like the mindset of “treat yo self”, but really, one episode of Netflix can turn into 3 or 4 or 5 very very fast.

Another tip is to prioritize. There was a study done that said that if you had 1-3 priorities that day, you will accomplish 1-3. If you have 4-6, then you’ll accomplish 1-2. More than that, and it’s likely you won’t accomplish any at all. This was something that one of my professors shared with me at the beginning of this semester and I really took the advice in trying to prioritize my day. Yes, sometimes you have several important things that you have to accomplish, but if you could only accomplish ONE, which one would it be? I think someone at the table talk (because I brought this up) asked me what I’d do if I had multiple things due the next day. Truth is, that has actually never happened to me because I end up staggering every assignment out over the course of a week/month so I’m always early in turning in my assignments and studying for my exams. This method will get you way ahead of your coursework (and this is coming from me, a stats/premed taking 22 credits this semester, working almost 20 hours a week, and still getting 8 hours of sleep a night, have a social life, and doing well!) so I recommend you giving it a try (or at least a thought) if you haven’t.

I think the last piece of advice for managing your exam stress is to take care of yourself. Don’t skip meals, and sleep is really more important than people give it credit for. I cannot count the number of times this semester where I went to bed late after being stuck on a programming problem–but when I wake up refreshed, the solution would come to me very quickly.

Hopefully everyone has a successful exam season! But I know we are all looking forward to the summer 🙂

March For Science (and Advocating for Science)

Posted on by

The march for science table talk was very interesting since there were so many surprising facts/figures/thoughts presented. For example, GRF Tyler showed us what the proposed budget for various government agencies (NIH, FDA, etc) under the Trump Administration looks like, as well as the results of a survey where people were asked if climate change is real.

I think that people are really disillusioned by the world around them particularly because of what information is available to them/the things media presents to them. For example, anti-vaxxers do not believe in the benefits of vaccines because they were presented a poorly done research that was “presented” as “fact.” Lack of education on top of a poor understanding of science plus a difference in experience (modern day people have never lived through a smallpox outbreak, for example, so they don’t know the true value of vaccines and how detrimental it could be to have even 3% of the population unvaccinated) resulted in the emergence of the anti-vax movement. The topic of climate change is headed in a similar direction, with a large number of well-educated/well-informed population speaking out to the government to try to change things, and then with a growing number of ill-informed, uneducated population perpetuating that “climate change isn’t real.”

All of this is incredibly problematic since scientific decisions impact all of us. Since we all live on this earth, a smallpox outbreak caused by anti-vaxxers would impact every single person who lives on this earth. The same goes for climate change. This is why the March For Science means so much. It means educating the population to help make decisions that impact all of us, and it’s advocating for continued scientific research and discovery, because on the long run, that’s how humankind will advance. It’s particularly sad that the current administration doesn’t see things this way (choosing to invest more in defense) and I’m scared to see where this kind of mindset (science is objective/should be ignored) would take us should we continue on this trajectory.

In the talk, we also mentioned how to best advocate for science. Scientists are good at what they do, but are not good at advocating for themselves and not good at convincing policy makers to change policies. I think we came to the conclusion that as scientists/supporters for science, we must not only have facts, but have reasons why these facts are important: in the form of anecdotes and calls to actions.

There are lots to be learned from the March for Science and there’s still a lot we can all do to be better advocates for science. It all starts here.

What is fake news? (and, a piece of fake news)

Posted on by

In the fake news table talk, we addressed what fake news is, and how we can help stop the spread of fake news.

For me, fake news is anything that the media publishes that is misleading (intentionally or not), or perpetuating wrong information. In my opinion, the media should be held accountable to fact check their information and they are responsible to publishing the right information. However, the public should also take all the news/information that they read with a grain of salt–that is especially true if you have access to the education and resources that allow you to fact check and critically think about what you’re reading. However, I don’t find the fake news issue to be too critical amongst our society today. By that, I mean that I don’t necessarily distrust news networks; I give them some benefit of the doubt, but I do try to read the news without getting my emotions involved so I can logically piece the article together. Does it make sense? What are the implications of this event and what are some of the historical background that relates to this? News networks will often try to get us to feel/respond a certain way (sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally) just through the rhetoric of the article and the way it is presented. CNN tends to be liberal, and Fox will be conservative, etc. Fox will vilify the liberal agenda and CNN the opposite, for example. But, if we take out the subjectiveness in these media pieces, then we can better judge for ourselves the validity of the articles.

Here I will be sharing something I consider “fake news.” Taiwan recently banned eating dog and cat meat.  CNN wrote an article about it.

Here’s what’s true:

  • Taiwan recently banned eating dog/cat meat
  • Individuals who eat or trade dog or cat meat can now be fined between $1,640 and $8,200.
  • Pretty much all the facts in this article.

But here’s what makes it “fake news”:

  • The article almost unintentionally (or intentionally) make the reader believe that Taiwan is a country that has participated in eating dog/cat meat through the random pieces of information about other Asian countries that eat dog/cat meat. The videos and pictures were all taken in China. 
  • Fact is that nobody eats dog/cat meat. Taiwan just decided that they needed a law so they knew what to do when they catch people who do it. But the population of people who eat dog/cat meat in Taiwan is extremely rare. As in, it’s not part of our culture at all.

This article is an article based on truth, yes, but there are so many parts of it that make this article misleading. It gives people who are not familiar to Taiwan the wrong ideas about the country and almost paint it in a negative light by including all the videos/pictures of animal abuse in China.

As a person who regular reads CNN, I’m actually quite disappointed in their coverage of this legislation. But it just shows that even a piece with all the facts can be misleading, just in another way.

Immunotherapy (Table Talk 3/20)

Posted on by

Immunotherapy is a fairly new development in medicine that boosts the body’s natural defense system in order to fight cancer. There are several ways to do this, including stopping/slowing the growth of cancer cells and boosting the immune system to identify and fight cancer cells. This talk was really interesting to me as a premed student and I was really impressed with GRF Shiv’s knowledge on this topic as well as his passion for this field.

I will say the talk left me a bit confused at times simply because most of the content of this table talk included very specified knowledge. That said, it only encouraged me more to look up the information afterwards, and in my own time I was able to learn more about it myself and reinforce the knowledge GRF Shiv passed on to us.

After the table talk and my own web-searching, I found out that there are many different methods of immunotherapy. Antibodies can be made in a lab and then used to detect/flag cancer cells so that the body knows to destroy them. Another interesting one was using genetically modified viruses to kill cancel cells. Finally, T-cells can be modified to treat cancer as well (CAR-T therapy). I find these developments in research to be encouraging for the future of medicine. Because there are so many different types of cancer and cancer cells vary from person to person, we’re still having trouble securing a “cure” for cancer. But perhaps the day that we do won’t be too far from now!

Women of Color Feminism

Posted on by

This past Monday, I went to the table talk about women of color feminism. It was an interesting chat with everyone around the table and I feel like I gained a lot from hearing about others’ perspectives–especially when we all went around and shared what was that “moment” where we decided that we were feminists. I thought it was really wonderful that the consensus at this table talk was that we definitely needed feminism. A lot of people say that we are in a post-feminism world, but there are so many obvious signs that we are not.

Another very important topic that came up was what women of color feminism meant. We didn’t mention a specific, exact definition, so I’ll talk a little bit about what women of color feminism means for me here after thinking about it for a week (I articulate thoughts better over writing anyways and though I shared my definition at the table talk, I feel like it wasn’t good enough/well developed). I feel like women of color feminism is inclusive feminism. We see “iconic” feminists fighting for women’s rights, but sometimes that doesn’t include women of color. Something I mentioned at the table talk was Susan B. Anthony, often thought of as a women’s rights icon. Though she fought for women’s right to vote, she failed to include African American women. In fact, in a notorious, racist, statement, she basically said that a woman’s right to vote is more legitimate than any African American’s. Modern day “women’s rights champions” include the likes of Taylor Swift and Amy Schumer. From Taylor Swift’s cultural appropriation and objectification of women of color in her Shake It Off music video, to Schumer’s parody of Beyonce’s Formation–these self proclaimed feminists are perfect examples of why white feminism is so problematic. White feminism essentially assumes white, cis, able-bodied, upper-middle class, thin, straight women as the “default.” The issue with that is that it ignores all the other -isms and -phobias that women from other backgrounds face every day–racism, classism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc–and instead of fighting for the rights of all women and taking in consideration the experience of all women, white feminism is limited to the experience of the “default” women, as I’ve described above. I mention white feminism as I feel like it is the complete opposite of the idea of women of color feminism. And though the term is explicitly ‘women of color’ feminism, I don’t feel like that feminism is exclusive to women of color. As in, because of the inclusive nature of women of color feminism, there is no ‘default’–which means white women aren’t excluded from this type of feminism. I see women of color feminism as feminism that considers all the voices, and supports everyone.

Something that was mentioned at the table talk was that can you just have one single women of color feminism? As in, are there more than one type–Asian American feminism, Latinx feminism, African American feminism, Indigenous feminism, and so on? I think the answer is yes and no–at the end of the day I think women just wants visibility. We want to be heard and we want people to pay attention to us. We want to be treated equally in the workplace and not have to fight so hard to have basic human rights, such as what we choose to wear or what we chose to do with our bodies. But, it’s also important to consider that each group may want different things–though we are all women, we still come from different cultural backgrounds. We have shared, overarching goals, as well as individualized ones. In that sense, I think there are more than one women of color feminism–one that focuses on the individualized goals. But at the end of the day, I think it’s also important to have one overarching women of color feminism to achieve that one big goal–gender equality. We can all take small steps to get there, but what is important is that everyone supports each other–one small victory can be everyone’s victory.

Reflections from watching a PMA production

Posted on by

This past Friday I went to watch Trestle at Pope Lick Creek with SA Ashley. While I’m not really what you would consider a theatre enthusiast, but in high school I did enjoy the drama productions that the drama department puts up. I think the Cornell PMA production of Trestle at Pope Lick Creek is very high quality, and it was really amazing to sit through the play and see the amount of work put into everything, from the set, to the acting, to the lights and artistry all around.

There are several things in the play that stood out to me. The first is how much drama and “extra” substance the actors had put into their acting. Everything is exaggerated, and though initially it was a little bit jarring (for example, did they really have to speak that loudly?), I think it’s very conventional for the actors to exaggerate their voices, expressions, and actions, especially in a play, and especially in a room of the size at Schwartz. I will say that it added to the drama, and it’s admirable how that level of energy and drama was sustained throughout the two hour long play.

Another thing that really stood out to me was the set. I thought it was really beautifully designed. The set consisted of four large wooden panels, two in the middle, one on the far left, and one one the far right. In addition, there were two large railroad trestle beams framing the two middle wooden panels. Each panel also has the trestle pattern painted on, and instead of it all standing completely upright, each panel was actually slanted a little bit–though each panel is perfectly rectangular, one edge of it would be balanced on a stack of plates. I think a lot of thought was put into the set design, and I think the addition of the stack of plates is indicative of that. For one, it adds detail, and for another, it could symbolize the uncertainty of the time period the play was set in, and it could symbolize instability that the characters felt.

The final thing that really stood out to me was the plot. I think for the most part, it felt incomplete. The ending didn’t feel abrupt by any means, but at the same time, it leaves the audience with a little bit of a question mark at the end. This makes me wonder whether or not that was exactly the playwright’s intention–perhaps that’s the message she wanted to portray about that time in history, or about life.

Overall, though, it was a very enjoyable play and I think it’s amazing how much work and effort was put into a production like this.

Women’s Oppression

Posted on by

The film screening last Friday of the documentary They Call Me Muslim was interesting and insightful. However, another Rose Scholar, Piragash, has pointed out in his blog post already, there are a few shortcomings of the film.

Let me just say what I liked about the documentary first: it gave us an interesting perspective and it definitely exposed me to cultures/thoughts/ideas that I don’t really get to hear about in my day-to-day life. I thought the women they chose were interesting and independent.

As for the shortcomings of the documentary… as Piragash said, the juxtaposition of the two women were kind of weird. They tried to frame the documentary as “two sides of the same coin,” when in reality, a women living in a theocracy in Iran is very different from a woman living in a democracy in France. The topic of the hijab just felt like a topic of convenience to make this juxtaposition work, when in reality, they could have highlighted women’s oppression living in theocracies or even women’s oppression in what we consider “developed” or democratic countries like the U.S. or France. Those would have been better juxtapositions then two women from two entirely different backgrounds from two drastically different countries and putting them as part of a 30-min. documentary. Perhaps the juxtaposition would seem more appropriate given more context, but in a 30 minute film, that’s near impossible.

I will say, however, that the women’s stories were interesting and I enjoyed listening to their reasons for wearing or for not wearing head coverings in their religion. I particularly admire the second women in her acts of defiance–it definitely takes a lot of courage to do something that can result in legal repercussions and I appreciated how she mentioned that if showing her hair/head “tempts men,” then “that’s their own problem.” Though a different scenario, it kind of reminded me of high school dress codes in America–how girls’ shoulders must be covered so it “doesn’t distract the boys.”

The last thing I want to touch on in this blog post is something entirely different from what I mentioned before. I would just like to touch on the French lawmaker’s words on how banning headscarves/religious symbols “protects” the women. I feel like this is a classic example of men making laws regarding women (not unlike abortion laws in the U.S.), and of course, it is problematic because they are making decisions on issues that don’t even pertain to them.

Even though the juxtaposition in this documentary leaves much to be desired, one thing is clear: the oppression of women around the world is still a huge problem. Regardless of the society you live in, whether it be a democracy like France or a theocracy like Iran, if you are a woman, decisions you make about yourself is not always yours to make, and we still have a lot of ground to cover before we reach true equality.

Sanctuaries: What Does it Mean?

Posted on by

In last week’s table talk, I had a chance to talk to Esmeralda and other Rose Scholars about the sanctuary movement, what it means, and whether or not Cornell is a part of it. It was very eyeopening and I learned a lot. While I’m not new to activism around campus, or the reason behind trying to make Cornell a sanctuary campus, I am surprised that there is so called “sub text” behind the email that Cornell sent out. At the end of the day, it seems, Cornell is just an institution and they will say what they need to say to appease the student population (“we will support undocumented students”), but when push comes to shove, it’s questionable whether or not they will actually protect undocumented students. It also is questionable what their “support” means–financially, physically (as in provide shelter if necessary), or is it just “in spirit” (we will be there for you! But we won’t actually.)

After doing a brief internet search, I learned that some activists and students consider sanctuary campuses any campus that allows for open conversations surrounding identity without the fear of xenophobia. Other students consider sanctuary campuses as campuses that have resources for undocumented students. And still others believe that sanctuary campuses are campuses who will protect undocumented students at any cost.

I think moving forward we, as students, activists, and a campus–should more clearly define the word “sanctuary” and “sanctuary campuses.” In order to make an impact, I think it’s important to realize what it is exactly that we want. If we don’t, it is then very easy for the University to stand on the blurred lines of their “support.”

Burnout as a Part of College Culture

Posted on by

I attended the table talk on wellness this past Monday and it was good to hear the perspective of Cornell staff as well as GRF Sara and SA Liz on wellness and student health.

Something that I’ve noticed throughout my time here thus far at Cornell is how prevalent burn out is part of the Cornell culture. That is true of, I’m sure, all elite universities as well. The truth is that Cornell students tend to be high achieving, and because of that, we all tend to do more and more and more. We tend to overcommit, put a ton on our plates, and eventually reach the tipping point: burnout.

I’m not saying all students get to that point, but there are plenty that do. You know what I mean–caffeine overload/5-hr energy overload, sleeping less than 5 hours a day, every day, not taking time to do activities that you love, and eventually getting to a point where you are so mentally and physically exhausted that you’re having a difficult time functioning.

And the thing is… I think to a certain degree, we even romanticize it. We romanticize exhaustion, burning out, putting too much on our plates. And to a certain degree, we believe that doing a lot/overextending ourselves = success. Taking 24 credits in a single semester is not a particular cause for concern for friends but in fact, a “wow, you’re smart!” reaction. Sleeping very little and still being able to get up for a 9am class? It’s considered superhuman and praised and lauded because for most of us, that’s not exactly normal. I think what we don’t see in these cases is the picture of exhaustion. Most of us will never see that one person at their lowest, when they feel like they want to give up, and most of us will never see them reach that tipping point of burning out… because showing that one has reached that tipping point is, in a sense, a sign of ‘weakness.’ So students struggle on, oftentimes alone. What others see is a picture of success, but what they feel on the inside is a sense of dread–trudging along the minutes of every day until the workload might finally one day lighten up.

In the first two weeks of the semester, already, I’ve seen some of my friends look tired and stressed–almost like a dark cloud over their heads from the overextension–so much so that it’s enough to cause some genuine concern on my part. But I know for a fact that I can say everything, offer advice, lend an ear, etc–but at the very end of the day, they will probably still continue to try to handle that workload, drink that caffeine, and stay up to do the work. Even if I want to lessen the stress for them, only they can make the choice to do it. I will admit that I’m 100% guilty of all of this too, and even I cause concern for my friends, but as long as burnout remains a part of college culture, all we can really do is be here for each other.

So here I’m going to share a graphic that is super relevant and important–especially as the semester goes on and each of us start to feel the burnout, just remember that overexertion and exhaustion is romanticized and that we can all shine even brighter if we put ourselves and our physical/mental wellbeing first.

The Women’s March, Inclusive Feminism, Intersectionality, and well, My Skepticism

Posted on by

I attended the Table Talk on the Women’s March on Monday, and it was cool to see many different points and opinions by the other Rose Scholars and GRFs. I think all the comments are valid and valuable, even if I didn’t agree with some of them. Here are just a few of my thoughts after the talk, and a thing that I wish had come up in conversation (but hadn’t–but I don’t really blame the conversation, it was something that’s harder to bring up).

So… the women’s march. I won’t deny its impact on a lot of women who went, and I won’t deny its impact on the fact that it is the largest organized march in history, but I will say that I am skeptical on the idea of ‘inclusive feminism” and intersectionality behind the women’s march. I’m definitely impressed with the turnout and the overall message (“we won’t back down/we stand together/solidarity/etc.”), and I’ll be the first to say that it was definitely very powerful… but I’m skeptical about the future. White feminism is pretty rooted in our history and there were definitely anecdotes from women of color/LGBTQ+ identifying women who felt that there were people at the march who invalidated their existence.

At the table talk, it was mentioned that everyone who went had different reasons for going, whether it was to celebrate an identity or to fight for a friend or a loved one who was affected by the insane executive orders or Trump’s damaging and alienating words. But, it’s actually not that big of a secret that some women went to the women’s march because it was “cool.” To them, it was a just something to do because they were bored, not because the march held any significance for them. There’s a particularly heartbreaking story circulating around on social media as an indigenous woman recounts her experience at the women’s march. She was approached by white feminists who asked if she was a real human, who took pictures of her and her group (they were wearing regalia), who casually (and insensitively) said, “Guess we’re Indians today!” while marching alongside the group (and then proceeded to get offended when the group of indigenous woman said “We don’t get to choose if we’re native or not. This is our reality & you are not Indian. You are disrespectful & need to go.“)

It’s not a particularly well known fact, but Susan B. Anthony, an activist who played a large role in the women’s suffrage movement, employed some strategic racism to achieve her goals. She was an opponent of the 15th amendment (which granted all black men the right to vote), and quite casually “climbed” on the backs of people of color to achieve her goals. Moving forward, what evidence is there for us to believe that something like that won’t happen again?

A lot of women of color have critiqued the women’s march, asking questions like why it took white women so long to rally together–where were they at black lives matter marches, and where are they in the fight against DAPL? Moreover… why were BLM marches considered “divisive” while the women’s march was considered more “virtuous”? People cited low arrest numbers–but were they that way because of the message behind the march, or a different method of policing entirely because of who went to the marches?

Moving forward… I just wonder if this is a one time thing. I just wonder if women of color are always going to be seen as “lesser,” their causes less virtuous and existence a burden. There is power in the march, sure, but will this be the one time that women from all walks of life come together? Or will women of color/people of color/minorities/LGBTQ+ identifying people continue to fight the hard fight alone? Remember that the majority of white women voted for Donald Trump. In the past, white women climbed on the backs of people of color in order to achieve their goals. Of course, I hope with every fiber of my being that this is a step towards a good direction and that we will all come together and work towards a better world. But, at the same time. I don’t think I’m wrong in being just a bit skeptical.