Writing is a key skill for everyone. No scientific investigation is complete until it becomes known to the world. Scientists usually do this by writing papers and publishing them. Too much great science has been ignored because the scientists did a poor job of writing up the results, in ways people could understand.

I will therefore assign a 2000-word paper, due on the last day of instruction, Wednesday, May 11. Since I take this so seriously, I will personally read and grade every one, so make them good!

Having something to say in your paper is essential. How you write it is also important: good content is so much more apparent if it's clear and easy to understand. For hints on writing, see The Elements of Style, by W. B. Strunk and E. B. White. This little book should be available in the campus bookstore for $6.95. (I made it a required text for PSci 21 this semester: I'm sure there will be some to spare.) There is also now an online version. Read it from cover to cover twice a year, for the rest of your life!

These papers may be on any topic on current, historical, or future concerns about energy, energy generation, energy use, any of their effects on the environment, or related science or technology. A typed (or computer printed) paper title and short summary (between 100 and 250 words) is due on Wednesday, April 27. You're allowed to change your topic after this if you discover something better: this is something I like particularly about science. A list of example paper topics should be attached to the printed copies of this syllabus. It is available online at http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/ps168.papers

Papers must be typed (or computer printed), on standard 8.5-inch x 11-inch paper with standard, one-inch margins. Use a readable 12-point serif font such as Times or Computer Modern Roman---not Chicago, Helvetica, Monaco, or Geneva, which are sans serif and hard to read in large doses.

Four thousand words isn't much. I want these papers to be well-thought-out, polished, beautiful little gems, not big loads of ore. It will help to focus on a specific topic. For example, whole books have appeared on the topic of solar energy. Can you really write a 2000-word paper on solar energy that isn't superficial? Better would be "Passive Solar Heating for Household Use," but again, whole books have appeared on this. Even better would be a review of a specific system, design, or method, or building codes or legal issues with building codes.

Likewise, a 2000-word paper on nuclear energy can't be anything but superficial: many whole books have appeared on this. Nuclear reactors would not be much better, as whole books have appeared on them, too. More suitable would be the link between civilian nuclear power and weapons proliferation, or whether Generation IV reactors really are "inherently safe."

For ideas, see the text, including chapters we haven't yet read. See also current and back issues of reputable popular magazines such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Discover, or National Geographic, or scientific journals such as Physics Today, Science, or Nature. Articles in these magazines are what your papers should be like.

Feel free to use the World Wide Web for research, too, but be careful of what you use, since there's a great deal of rubbish on the web. When using the web for research, be sure as always to reference your sources, by listing their web addresses, also known as URLs. Because everything on the web is subject to change without notice, it is also essential to list the date that appears on the page to indicate when it was last updated, as in the above example. If no such date appears on the page, list the version number appearing on the page. If there is no version number, then list the date you consulted the page.

These papers must provide a list of references, or works cited. Not doing so can turn an "A" paper into a "B" paper. There must be at least five references. No more than two of these five can web addressses. You may use more references than this required minimum: indeed, if you want an A, you should have substantially more.

Here are some useful ways to list references:

For a journal article:


Ringwald, F. A., & Naylor, T. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, volume 115, pp. 286-295,
"High-Speed Spectroscopy of a Cataclysmic Variable Wind: BZ Camelopardalis"


For a magazine article:


Ringwald, F. 2000, Astronomy, vol. 28, No. 6, p. 48 (June issue),
"The Sky Down Under"


For a book chapter:


Ringwald, F. A. 1998, in the Third Conference on Faint Blue Stars, edited by A. G. Davis Philip, J. W. Liebert, R. A. Saffer, and D. S. Hayes (Schenectady, New York: L. Davis Press), p. 425,
"PG 1002+506: a Be Star at Z = +16 kpc"


For a book:


Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), p. 221
(Don't forget to include a reference to the specific page that contains the information you used: it's too much to expect your reader to wade through the entire book to find what you mean.)

For a web page:


Ringwald, F. A., 1998, http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/comp2.3lis
"Composite-Spectrum and Related Stars That Are Candidate Detached Post-Common-Envelope Binaries, v. 2.3" (March 29)

Knowing how the references were used is also important. You should therefore cite references in the text, especially when making statements of fact that aren't well-known or immediately obvious. Give the author's name and the year of publication, so your reader can easily match up the statements with the references. Here are three different examples of how to cite references in the text:

"Although doubt has been expressed in the past about whether this approach is feasible (e.g., Smith 1995), the problem was recently solved by Horne (1999), and described in detail by Warner (1995, p. 221)."

Here, Smith (1995) and Horne (1999) were journal articles, but Warner (1995) was a book. Note that with the case of Horne (1999), one can put the author's name into the sentence, useful for emphasizing that Horne did this work.

You need not use this exact format for citing references, but do use a format precise enough so that I can look the references up myself. It's frustrating when a student writes something interesting, but gives a reference that's so imprecise, I'm unable to find out more about it!

Here are some other tips on writing:

• Don't write about feelings. Some high school teachers encourage students to do this, but college students need to go beyond that. Write with facts, they speak more convincingly than feelings.

• Avoid gratuitous opinion. If you can substantiate an opinion logically, fine, that's what it's all about. If you can't, you really should, since even the most ignorant people have opinions. Back up your claims with evidence!

  I will admit that, to enliven my lectures, I sometimes do inject opinions and value judgements. There is a big difference between spoken and written communication, however. Avoid imitating this when you write: stick to the facts.

• Thoughtful students sometimes wonder whether my insistence on logic, facts, evidence, and quality composition and style "is bad for creativity." The answer is no: no more so than the format of the minuet inhibited Mozart, or the form of the sonnet stifled Shakespeare. The truth is, when given well-defined sets of rules, creativity does well. Your imagination and originality are greatly encouraged, and will be rewarded. They must be disciplined, though—get your facts right, and explain carefully and clearly: Why do you think what you think?

• Do not confuse the following:
  

  "It's" is the contraction of "it is."
  "Its" is the posessive of "it," as with "hers" or "his."
  

  This error may be common, but it drives me wild, and can be bad for your grade.

• Avoid clichés like the plague, they're old hat and hard to swallow, and don't hold water. (See how trite they sound?)

• Avoid hype, it makes me vomit. Seriously: science is about truth, remember?

• Use the word "unique" sparingly. Unique specifically means one-of-a-kind. It's therefore never necessary to write "very unique."

• Use the word "interesting" sparingly. It smacks of opinion. Anything can be interesting to a nerd.

• Other words loaded with value judgements, such as "amazing" or "wonderful," should be used sparingly. If you must use them, remember that "amazing" specifically means able to amaze. "Wonderful" specifically means able to inspire wonder. As Michael Faraday said: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature."

• Don't write "very important," unless what you're describing is worthy of a Nobel Prize. Use "important" sparingly. Don't use "very." (Mark Twain wrote that instead of "very," you should write "damn." Your editor should remove every instance of this, and your writing will become as it should be.)

• Avoid writing in the first person ("I," "me," "mine") or the second person ("you," "yours"). If you must refer to yourself, do so in the third person (i.e., "the author," not "I," which sounds so egotistical). Academic writing is more formal than the average e-mail message. This doesn't mean that your writing must be stuffy or boring. Write in a way that seems natural to you, but avoid slang, colloquialisms, and clichés.

• Avoid using the following words or phrases: "very," "nice," "good", "bad," "I/me/my," "big," "a lot," "fact that," "hopefully."

• Omit needless words. Omit needless words. Omit needless words.
  (Somewhere, Will Strunk is beaming.)

• Avoid putting a numeral at the beginning of a sentence, since it makes the sentence confusing. For example, don't write this: "94% of the students who took PSci 21 in Fall 2000 passed." Instead, write this: "Ninety-four percent of the students who took PS 21 in Fall 2000 passed." Another way is: "Of the students who took PS 21 in 2000 Fall, 94% passed" (This is a true statement, by the way.)

• "The Sun" should be capitalized, but "sunlight," "sunrise," or "solar energy" are not.

• Avoid using Encarta, or indeed, any kind of encyclopedia. They were OK for high school, but we aspire to better: college work demands more detailed, and expert, sources.

• Proofread carefully, to spot missing words, jumbled sentences, or other ill effects of writing with a computer.

• Always run a spelling check! Not doing so makes you look sloppy.
  (It is not called a "spell check," it's a spelling check. I don't know what a "spell check" is: it sounds to me like software used by witches, to make sure they've cast the correct spells.)

  This is how I grade papers:

  • F = This paper was handed in late, and will not be counted. Plagiarized papers will earn an F for the entire course.

  • D = This paper was full of composition and factual errors, and was skimpily and begrudgingly researched, or showed a basic lack of understanding of what science is about.

  • C = This paper was either well written, showing few errors in spelling, grammar, or style (as described by The Elements of Style, by W. Strunk and E. B. White). Or it was well researched, showing a thorough gathering and reading of sources. It wasn't both well written and well researched at the same time, though.

  • B = This paper was both well researched and well written, but it was not particularly thoughtful, innovative, or original. It would have helped to have focused this paper more.

  • A = In addition to being well written and well researched, this paper was innovative and original, and was a real pleasure to read. Papers like this are almost never written the night before they are due. They are the result of a great deal of careful thought and preparation.

  For more on how papers are graded, see the copy of the California State University, Fresno General Education Writing Rubric.