In September of 2014, Women Rising radio rode the People's Climate train coast to coast, with over 200 activists heading to New York City to join the largest climate change march in history.
- Valerie Love, Center for Biological Diversity, No Tar Sands Campaigner
- Penny Opal Plant, Indigenous climate activist
- Lauren Wood, Utah's Peaceful Uprising co-founder
- Teresa Jimenez, Urban Tithe organizer
- Shannon Biggs, Global Exchange Community Rights program director
- Rosalind Harris, Global Climate Justice Alliance
- Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director
- Sister Santussika, Tony Sirna, Camille Herrera, Carrie, Riders on the People's Climate Train
- People's Climate Train Singers
Science and engineering subjects are often presented as better career choices for students than the arts or humanities. Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, recently said that STEM subjects – sciences, technology, engineering and maths – unlock doors to all sorts of careers and that pupils who study maths to A Level earn 10% more over their lifetime.
Previous research has shown that there are actually lots of factors including ability, personality, motivation as well as family and educational background which impact on what undergraduate degree people take and their ongoing career success. And our new research has shown that the importance of the different types of motivation varies depending on the subject a student chooses.
Importance of motivation
When we are excited about something, whether it is a hobby or an interesting work-related task, we tend to perform better and apply a variety of creative approaches. If we are focused on a particular goal, we might be more organised and use a more structured approach in delivering the expected result.
This focus on an external goal, such as financial success, is known as "extrinsic" motivation, while enjoyment is known as "intrinsic" motivation. Both are very important for career success but in different ways. Extrinsic motivation leads to better performance, while intrinsic motivation to a deeper, more thorough way of learning.
Our new research shows that students studying for different degrees differ in their level of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. We asked a sample of 896 prospective students who attended open days and 989 current students at two large UK universities in the Russell Group the reasons for their degree choice. They were asked to rate how true statements such as: "I have chosen this degree because I was always interested in this subject" or: "I have chosen this degree because it provides good career options" were for them.
Different degrees, different reasons
We found differences in the reasons that students of certain subjects had for choosing their degrees, as the graph below shows. For example, current and prospective engineering students rated career options as a very important reason for their choice of degree, while interest in the subject was a low one. Yet arts and humanities students showed the opposite: prospective students reported enjoyment factor as important in their degree choice, while career was not as important on the agenda.
Both types of motivation are important to success on the career path, both in a person's degree and their future job. So it is necessary to have a goal to be successful in your career. It is also important to provide students with an opportunity to follow their intrinsic motivation to enjoy their studies because they will perform better at what they enjoy.
Restructure arts degrees
Careers are often judged by financial success – and not without a reason. And graduates from arts and humanities degrees seem to make less money than their STEM peers. For example, a 2011 report by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, puts most arts and humanities subjects at the bottom of the pay scale.
But perhaps the reason for that is not that those careers are a bad choice. If arts and humanities degrees attract people who are not career-driven, could that explain why they do not do as well financially in their career in the future? In order to make more money, you need to strive for that – it doesn't just come by itself.
If it is the case that arts and humanities students do not do as well financially because of low career aspirations, should we discourage them from choosing arts and humanities? Probably not – these degrees are where they might do the best – because they enjoy it. Instead, universities should provide them with more career focus in their undergraduate courses that can make those students more structured in achieving their career goals.
But we need to exercise caution in doing this. Previous research has shown that, in certain cases, external rewards such as being praised for being on top of your class actually undermine intrinsic motivation. This might lead to a "surface" type of learning where students are focusing on reproducing material accurately for a test without necessarily understanding it. If people start the degree because it is enjoyable and then are made to focus too much on external achievements, it might paradoxically make them enjoy the process of study less.
And if people are not that keen on what they are doing and just do it for the pay, they may be less likely to do a good job – or they might drop out if better-paid work opportunities arise. So the key is to let people choose what they enjoy – and then help them to make it into a career.
Thanksgiving is an occasion when we gather with our families for festive meals. It's also a time when many of us donate to help the less fortunate celebrate with their families.
This holiday binds us all together: At least once a year, you should be able to sit around a table with your loved ones, enjoying turkey and mashed potatoes. If a bit of charity is needed to extend this joy to everyone, then many of us are glad to pitch in.
But how about the other 364 days of the year? What do the hungry do then?
Well, they better not be doing drugs, according to conservative governors like Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
This notion falls in line with the image of the so-called "welfare queen," a cruel stereotype of public assistance recipients based on just one woman — a criminal named Linda Taylor, whose illegal activities went far beyond simply welfare fraud. In fact, she was suspected of murder.
The typical face of public assistance probably looks a lot more like you — or me.
Back in 2006, I got a glowing review at work, followed by a raise. I bought a condo. But all too suddenly, my job situation changed for the worse, and I found myself unemployed.
I tightened my belt, of course — but I had a mortgage to pay. Unemployment insurance was a savior as I looked for a job and attempted to sell my home in a tough market. After a few months, I got back on my feet.
Years later, I tried to make a go of it as a freelance journalist. Financially, it didn't work out, even though I was working hard and getting published. I wanted to earn enough to live on — badly.
So I regrouped and applied to graduate school. But it took about a year between deciding to go to school and enrolling in a PhD program. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the latest official name for food stamps — briefly helped me out through a rough patch in between. The meager $70 per month I received was a godsend.
During either period, had I wanted to use illegal drugs, I couldn't have afforded them. My money went to food, rent, and utilities, and almost nothing more. Even movies and haircuts were too luxurious for my budget.
That's exactly what the state of Florida found out during its brief stint drug-testing welfare recipients. Only 2.6 percent tested positive — far less than the 8 percent of Floridians overall who use illegal drugs. The testing program cost more money than it saved, and then it was struck down by the courts to boot.
In Utah, a similar program identified only a dozen users among welfare recipients.
These failed gotcha games haven't stopped other states from trying the same gimmick — including Georgia, Arizona, Alabama, Mississippi, and now Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker has proposed testing applicants for both unemployment benefits and food stamps.
I wish Walker would realize that very few people facing economic hardship have the luxury to dabble in drugs. If you're poor enough to qualify for food stamps, you're really poor. Even with food stamps, you're still having trouble making ends meet.
Also, nobody would ever be able to fill out the reams of paperwork required to get food stamps while high. It's a bureaucratic nightmare to qualify for any form of assistance. Sobriety is required — and maybe a caffeinated beverage.
Drug testing the poor wastes taxpayer money and only serves to stigmatize economic hardship. Mending the safety net makes more sense.
That might not fly with the new Republican majority in Congress. But it'll do a lot more good than donating a turkey once a year.