Hi, my name is Deshaun Carter. I'm a policy analyst on the higher education team here at New America. Two cases currently sit with SCOTUS, a student for fair admissions versus Harvard College and student fair missions versus the University of North Carolina, which could likely ban colleges and universities from proceeding race in their admissions process. If SCOTUS decides to overturn affirmative action, we can expect to see many damaging nirbling effects throughout the higher education system, let alone other institutions. Here at New America, we acknowledge that we are not experts on affirmative action, however, we are dedicated to making higher education more equitable and accountable, fighting for inclusion rather than exclusion, so that everyone can obtain affordable, high quality education. Therefore, we are very committed to using our platform to uplift those with deep expertise and knowledge to raise awareness and spark cohesive dialogue on creating future policies to ensure that higher education institutions are a guiding light in embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion. So, without further ado, I want to welcome David Hawkins from Chief Education and Policy Officer at the National Association for College and Admissions Counseling, also known as NACAC. Thank you so much, David, for joining me on this call just to talk more about what can we possibly be thinking about as we await the decisions of affirmative action possibly being overturned? I want to kick this conversation off by just starting, learning more about you and your work and what interested you working in this particular policy space. Yeah, well, thank you, Deschan, for having me today and it's a pleasure to be here. You know, what fundamentally interests me in the work that NACAC does and that I do for the association is that I have a core belief in education as a great advance or a great equalizer, a great opportunity for so many people yet for so many people that opportunity gets foreclosed at one point or another by the systems that we've put in place by the inequities that are embedded in so many parts of our society. My mother was a teacher's assistant and then an early childhood educator while I was growing up and her commitment to the fundamental talents, strengths, knowledge that is included in every child that walks into the door was something I took away and it's so disappointing to see how our things that are beyond students' control can make such a difference in whether they actually get to show their strengths and show their knowledge or whether they're shunted to the side at some point. That was a very core element in my belief system that led me to this work and then subsequent to sort of going to college and getting a master's degree and coming out. The idea that we can make progress in the world is something that I fundamentally believe in that I'm committed to as a professional and the education space was a place where you can put those values into action and certainly at NACAC our core beliefs revolve around fairness, equity, social responsibility. So the conversation about who gets access to higher education particularly is of relevance to us and of course we believe that should be everyone who's interested in it but the reality on the ground is that that is not what is happening right now. So we are fundamentally committed to equity particularly as it involves the transition to post-secondary education. Thank you so much and again I appreciate your commitment and yeah commitment to equity especially within higher education and let alone just the education system itself. Going into my next question we know that this is not the first time affirmative action has come up. I'm thinking also about the previous case back in 2015 Fisher versus Texas. Do you see any differences between you know the cases what's going on with Harvard and UNC? Are there any similarities and do you think the higher education policy arena has changed since the last time affirmative action came up? Yes well certainly there are both similarities and differences in these cases. The broad similarity of course is that really for the past 50 years there has been a core group who is determined to drive out any consideration of race or ethnicity in college admission decision making. So that is the tie that binds. I think that goes without saying of course but might as well spell it out. In the Fisher case you know the the putative dispute was about a student a white student who was not admitted to the University of Texas and you know her individual claim that somehow her race was a factor in her not getting into the institution was the was sort of the core issue and of course the unspoken at the time case was simply that the plaintiff's attorneys were among those people who are just determined to see race have no role or race or ethnicity have no role in admission decision making at all. The UNC and Harvard cases are again putatively different they do have different claims the Harvard case the the plaintiff's attorneys are alleging to well they're purporting to represent Asian American students which we know is is by by no measure is the Asian American community aligned behind these plaintiffs. There is certainly division but we know that there's a substantial number of Asian Americans who are supportive of Harvard's efforts to to create a diverse student body. The the plaintiff's attorneys in this case or SFFA are taking aim at a class of students that's suggesting that somehow Harvard's sensitivity or awareness of race and ethnicity and its review process is systematically resulting in a higher bar for Asian American students to meet to get into Harvard so it's a more of a class issue in terms of the legal grounds on which the case is being brought and then of course in the UNC case you have the allegation that race is being used in a sort of box checking way that in in essence people are getting de facto points because of their race which of course the University of North Carolina disputes Harvard disputes the claims against it but the bottom line again is that this is a looking at this in the long arc of history or the not so long arc of history as the case may be there is just a core group of people in this country who are determined that race and ethnicity have no role have no place in college admission considerations. We of course vehemently disagree we see the systemic racism that that leads students to the point at which we see them in admissions and our our assertion is that race and ethnicity are so fundamentally part of a student's experience and a student you know the students themselves that to that to not consider them is in fact a form of discrimination in and of itself so those are the ties that bind some of the the differences between 2015 and now but the the endgame is still the same. Thank you for yeah thank you for expanding on that because I know a lot of people are like wow this is going to keep what's going to continue to keep coming up if you know like I said it's not the first time it's not the second time I can't even keep count on my hand anymore of how many times this this issue continues to come up but I think I also want to talk a little bit more about a little bit about the definition of affirmative action. I recently came across a poll where you know I think it was a Washington post char school they recently surveyed the general public about their views on race being considered in admissions process and I saw that about 70% had disapproved of race being considered in college admissions but then another 70% in that same poll also appreciated programs that helped increase diversity on college campus and I'm wondering is there like a disconnect between the general public and the definition of affirmative action or race or race conscious policy because I know those words tend to get interchanged a lot but I'm just curious to know like is there a disconnect on the definition and what can we do to I guess like under help the general public to understand what that definition is. Yeah you raise an excellent point here first of all the terminology affirmative action we no longer use that at NAC Act because affirmative action strictly defined is what was at stake in the Baki versus University of California Regents case in 1978. The court struck that down in 1978 and really affirmative action as it is defined has not been used in college admissions since 1978 so we prefer the term race conscious admission because as the University of Michigan case is back in the early 2000s emphasized colleges cannot provide points based solely on a student's race or ethnicity that was the undergraduate case at the University of Michigan where the admissions office was essentially providing a points in a numeric system if a student came for an underrepresented minority or racial or ethnic background. So I think part of the disconnect is that the media I think people who are on the opposing side from us tend to favor the term affirmative action just because in the media's case it's a handy shortcut in the in the conservatives case it is a loaded term. I think what accounts for the disconnect is if you sat someone down and said if you sat someone from the public down and said here is what affirmative action is and we no longer do this in admissions here is what race conscious admission or holistic admission looks like that accounts for the difference between the 70 opposed you know affirmative action in admissions versus 70 percent think diversity is an important element in a student body in higher education. A good example of this is that back after the so-called varsity blues scandal I think probably everybody remembers that given the given the celebrity nature of the of the scandal we actually and a number of other groups conducted focus groups of both conservative voters and liberal voters and both of them had from their own perspectives a fair amount of skepticism about college admission from the from the left you know folks tended to see it as skewed towards the wealthy and towards the you know towards the already advantaged which in many ways I think knackak acknowledges and has acknowledged on the record that it is conservatives tend to see more the racial aspect of it but when we sat these two groups down and they were separate so they didn't mix but when we sat the two groups down and said well let's take you through a sample selection process you have 15 students here you can take seven and here's all these different characteristics it was amazing that both groups came up with a very very similar way of sorting through those students both of which involved considerations of the students backgrounds including the high schools they went to their racial and ethnic heritage their income their parents level of education so I think what what happens in so many areas in American society and in fact the world is that our our world is so specialized it's so you know in order to fully understand any issue you really have to spend some time with it and I just don't think we as higher ed the media have really perhaps done a good enough job of sitting people down and saying this is what admission actually is let's talk about it on these terms and of course you have people trying to actively misrepresent the admission process and you have folks for whom the admission process sells ads and articles and things like that so there's a there are there are incentives to talk about admissions in a way that gets people riled up but perhaps we need to do a better job of of sharing with people what admissions actually is and what it isn't and in that way promote a broader understanding of of how a student's race or ethnicity might actually factor into the process while reassuring people that there are no more institutions that are saying just because you are from X community you get extra points in the admission process that does not happen anymore. Thank you for sharing that and yeah I do want to uplift that as someone who actually used to work a long long time ago in undergrad worked for an early outreach program that participated in the admissions process of like looking at that doing the holistic process it is very tedious and it's it's y'all deserve I don't I don't you know how to I don't even know how to describe it but y'all deserve a lot of kudos and effort because at the end of the day it is a very tedious process and it would be probably better to have um to you know just to lay it out for the for the general public to understand like this is the process that we're doing it's not always we're not always I don't even want to say this but it's not always about race but there's other factors that go into that um thank you for sharing that um wow that was that was great um so now moving into you know things are coming out of the south um particularly looking at Florida and Texas um about their DI efforts um are there actions possibly maybe a precursor to what we might see um unfold nationwide um if if a front of action is overturned and what is at stake um for higher education institutions and their current um DI efforts yeah excellent question um in fact we are seeing this um as you said Florida and Texas are exits A and B um we're seeing this in many other states uh couple of couple of points in response to your question number one this is a significant complicating factor um you asked earlier about the difference between the Fisher case in these two cases I talked about the legal considerations a huge environmental consideration that was not present in the Fisher case or any of the other cases um in recent memory at least is this very deliberate very aggressive backlash um against you know progress in general of the way I tend to see it but that that these these very proactive efforts to actively discriminate against communities and to actively erase um you know history from textbooks and you know and and and go after DEI initiatives at in both the K-12 and higher ed context that is a significant complicating factor um I think in in in response to how will we deal with this moving forward number one we're advising our institutions and we're saying it ourselves these court cases this this movement in this country right now will not stop us from striving towards progress when it comes to diversity equity and inclusion that train left the station many many years ago if we hope to be uh the kind of society that we want to be uh if we want to remain relevant to the world uh if we want to remain economically vibrant you could the list goes on and on right if if we want to um we will need to maintain our commitment to DEI and we want to maintain our commitment to DEI just because it's the right thing to do so starting with that principle in mind the the road ahead will be difficult and the first the first step is of course equipping our college and university and high school members frankly with the kinds of resources that they need everything from from advocating for them in fact we're right now soliciting feedback from our members about how these initiatives are affecting them on the ground level to then be able to to to go back to policymakers and say this is what this is this is what your students are going to to lose in these contexts and this is what it's doing to your educational institutions uh so everything from advocacy to um educational resources we're building we're developing research and educational resources aimed at shoring up DEI initiatives so that even if institutions start to become hesitant about their ability to provide we want to be a source so our our uh our view is very much to uh to maintain and accelerate our DEI efforts um as an association but then also create that that message because it's not just the institutions and the educators uh that are experiencing this it's the students and families as well and we want to make sure that in light of this court decision and in light of all that's happening now they are assured that we are still committed to DEI in in in as many different ways uh as as we are able so the the one maybe maybe future focused concern that we have is that when this decision comes down given the environment that exists at the state legislative level and even here in washington that some constituencies will be tempted to read more into this decision than is actually there so we're going to be very attentive to what the decision says and what it doesn't say and i can imagine there will be quite a bit of advocacy after the decision comes out to suggest or to fight back against the narrative that this somehow justifies a lot of what what else is going on in the states and indeed um uh we know that there is a a template uh led a piece of legislation going around in the states that would it would go even further than this decision is likely to go so we can already see that people are starting to try to to capitalize on this these cases to uh to advance their um in in my in my opinion ill ill conceived and ill considered initiatives yeah you did touch on a lot of great points that i think a lot of it's it's like you mentioned earlier it's is far beyond more than just admissions uh the on campus programs that uh protect a lot of communities of color um when they come on campus or like just in general safety um racialized and gender violence um those things are at state too um yeah thank you thank you for sharing um moving on into the next question um now we're kind of going back to some state policy I know like California Michigan they have they have banned affirmative action from their admissions process but both have actually acknowledged that they've seen a decrease in diversity on their campuses especially at their flagship and selective universities what can we learn from these states and what should federal policy policymakers know moving forward as we already know that some of these states have already banned it yeah you know another great question that the first thing that state and federal policymakers should know is that after this decision comes down we are almost guaranteed to see a decline in post-secondary enrollment among underrepresented racial and ethnic populations that's just that is what we've seen in every state that has such a ban in place um and our our legislators need to understand that that is going to happen after this court decision um the policy implication for that uh in fact I was just at a conference earlier this week in Jacksonville Florida and I noted that during this this session that I was presenting that there are no states that say we want to throttle back post-secondary enrollment every state that that talks about education and it is all of them want to see increased enrollment at the post-secondary level and we're not going to make gains under our policy goals at the state or federal level if we are systematically shutting out uh students from any segment of society but particularly from those segments that are already underrepresented and that term underrepresented is so critical here because if our goal is to improve enrollment then we can't rely on people who are already enrolling we have to go to underrepresented populations it's it's such a simple notion that it's it's tough to believe that people don't don't see the the implications of this so that is that is priority number one we are going to have to very quickly and urgently address the systemic inequities that that cause certain student populations to be underrepresented so that's going to that to me is going to suggest a broad range of of remedies uh that you know the um that the institutions that are working in the states now that have bans they're trying they're doing the best they can they have accelerated their high school visits they have gone into places that they had maybe haven't traditionally gone they have done much more intentional outreach to underrepresented populations you know they've they've worked with community-based organizations the list goes on and on but the the ability of any single institution to address this systemic inequity problem we have is going to be limited so the states and the federal government are going to need to look very carefully at policies that uh encourage underrepresented students to uh to both sort of consider and then apply to and enroll in in higher education yeah that's totally true both state and federal because um yeah it's going to come down to the states because a lot of people are also thinking like this this whole decision could be like a similar as roby wade uh situation um so yeah thank you for sharing um but i want to now just kind of spotlight some of the stuff that you all have been doing um at your organization you know what are y'all doing to ensure the higher education institutions you know provide equal access for students of color i know y'all have had recently just probably had a conference um the elevate equity 2023 and then i know y'all are also doing you know some work to actually bring students into that admissions process so i would love to you know hear more about it and then also just for the general public to know more as well yeah well in in 2022 we issued a report uh with our colleagues at the national association of student financial aid administrators that um that really took a good hard look at admissions and financial aid uh and and the context that we that we set up for this project was how would you have how would you have to rethink primarily admissions but also financial aid if your sole goal was racial equity you know it was a thought exercise and what we came out with was was i think it wasn't necessarily groundbreaking because we know lots of other people have had similar ideas but what was important about it was it was the admissions profession saying these things that that to date the admission profession itself had not necessarily uh in a in a unified way said so it said what we said and what we said was basically that we are dealing we are working in a system college admissions that was never fundamentally designed for equity uh a lot of the systems we rely on today even though they've been vastly improved over the last century were originally designed in the late 1800s and early 1900s and those systems were designed to call the very let's say cream of the crop but that's that's not really what i mean it's the they were they were designed for a very specific population of people and even inside that population they were looking then at the very like skimming across the top um financially and and otherwise so as i said we have obviously made a lot of progress since then but still it's remarkable how many processes we have kept in place just sort of tweaking and so we came up with four sort of subject area recommendations for for admissions and then two cross cutting recommendations the first of which i'll start with the cross cutting recommendations number number one institutions have to take the time to what we say get on the balcony they have done entire leadership of the of the institution needs to needs to remove itself from its day to day work and set aside time to think about how its mission-based equity goals align with its admission processes because you'd be surprised how often colleges say a lot about equity about diversity about inclusivity in their mission statements but then when it comes to admissions the practices are fundamentally not well aligned so that was that was the first cross cutting recommendation the second was as you said involve students talk to these students make sure you have underrepresented students feeding into your decision making processes and so to those two recommendations as you said we held a conference in Chicago back in February where we brought trustees presidents and senior admission deans together um and the the the output from that was invigorating that we heard from from institutional teams that they had to fly all the way to Chicago to spend time talking about the ei on their campuses that they just couldn't find the time when they were back at home uh so we'll have a forthcoming report that that outlines challenges and opportunities from from those discussions likewise we are in the process of wrapping up an ad hoc committee at NACAC that actually includes both admission and counseling members on the one hand and students on the other so it's a first of its kind endeavor for us but we'll come out of that with similarly a set of recommendations for how to involve students in these conversations so that your processes reflect the experiences of students and i know many institutions do some of that but we want to make sure that it is a constant that all institutions are constantly talking to their students and then in terms of the four subject areas we wanted institutions to to streamline the admissions process the application process or even rethink the application process because we heard from students that that that is a significant barrier and more so for underrepresented students uh second recommendation was to think about what you ask students for and why you ask for it you know good good example is the test optional movement do do we if we require tests what do we what do we learn from those tests about whether a student's going to succeed at this institution and we actually did research a few years ago that suggested that half of colleges that required tests at the time didn't do any research to figure out if the test said anything about whether the students were going to succeed so we want institutions to be thinking carefully not just about tests but about all the other things they asked for and how if they if they require this set group of things how do those things reflect equity or inequity you know so we want to like a multi-level approach to this we also thirdly wanted institutions to think about if selectivity was important to them why it was important can you reassess that and if if not if it is important if you've decided as an institution you want to be selective then what are the grounds on which you're selective you know right now these court cases are dictating that test scores and grades and and they of course are going to be important grades will always be important but these very sort of narrow numeric variables are the basis upon which most institutions are selective institutions could be free to add other variables to that it's it's within their academic rights to add other variables so we want people to think why selectivity and how are you selective and then finally we want to look at the face of the admissions office because that is what students see and we know from our students who again we worked with students not only in this ad hoc committee but as part of the original project they were students of color said that oftentimes they didn't feel represented when they looked at the admissions office that they didn't feel they connected that the admissions officers understood them so we want to be very intentional about how we arrange our admissions offices and and making sure that the admissions offices are DEI ready you know every every admission officer is DEI ready so that's that's the that's what NACAC hopes to do of course we want to advocate we know that institutions have policy levers that they can control here we know that there's institutional governance that needs to be involved sometimes and then state and federal legislatures that can also be helpful so we want to work hard with our institutions but we also want to work with with government to make sure that we are setting the system up so that it is in fact designed for equity wow um that's a lot there wow uh i'm very i'm like i don't know where to go because i was like wow i was like check box check check i was like yes yes yes and even i was thinking back when you were talking i was like i was thinking back to my own admissions process when i applied for undergrad i was like what did i do i don't i was like it's it's been about almost 15 years and i was like wow that was such a long time ago um but yes all all yes to everything that you said i think it's so important especially for like when students do go and visit the campus or go to the admissions office i never seemed to think about that because i don't i remember taking tours of you know my university and was like oh didn't even come to think like you know if you see yourself on campus um people feel more welcome and i think that just goes back to you know diversity equity and inclusion um which is one of the things i've been looking into and thinking about more deeply is about how do how does that become a basic need and how you know universities are going to be committed to d i and like you're saying it's one thing to put in your mission statement but if it's not trickling into you know other parts of your you know other parts of your institution then that that's a problem um so just taking a step back and reimagining what that admission process is going to look like i think that's probably the first step is to start with the admissions process um because that is what's you know keeping your institution running is the enrollment um wow that's a lot to go off of and thank you so much for sharing that i'm i'm just like check check check um want to get into i think more about the federal policies i know we talked a little bit earlier about state policy um but you know at new america we you know we're we're very focused on federal policy just given our location being in washington dc um what would you like congress and the white house um to know about the fallout if a front of action is overturned um what can congress do to maintain and improve access for students of color yeah you know there are a few things that come to mind and the first is going to be a more of a soft leadership approach um we met with the white house um earlier earlier this month uh and one of the things we told them is that you know there is going to there's there is a need for uh public leadership on this issue that um as i as i mentioned earlier the uh the the effects of this case are going to include a psychological effect for many americans particularly americans of color and we at knackak intend to do this but we think it's important that our elected leaders do as well and that is to send the very public message that we are still committed we are absolutely committed to diversity equity and inclusion in our educational system and limiting systemic inequities uh as as they relate to race and ethnicity so that is i think that is a it sounds kind of simple or simplistic and and and and um and obvious but it is going to play an important role uh the second the second thing that i think can be a critical role for federal policy is to in fact look for the levers that it has to both identify and alleviate systemic discriminatory effects um in fact i just saw yesterday uh the department of education intends to revive the disparate impact work that the that the office of civil rights has been has done in the past before the prior administration looking at school districts and trying to get at that systemic inequity in the k-12 system we would encourage that that the federal government look for similar similar opportunities across the educational spectrum um you know the fact that there are such systemic inequities in the college enrollment space it could be another area where we look systemically it's one thing to look at in individual institutions it's another to point out that there are systemic and potentially disparate impacts across our educational system and look for ways in which the federal uh civil rights infrastructure can be brought to bear on on that the the the third thing and these are these are large buckets we can certainly talk about them at at at more length but the third area of course and this is for me this is not a learn long-term solution as much as it is a short term is that there are programs um that can get at some of the inequities you know we start with say the college access programs that are on the books your gear up your trio um those those programs are um very oriented towards college access and have a remarkable track record for helping to improve enrollment among under underrepresented populations but they can't do it all um so you know looking at at all of your policy levers both through the higher education act and through the the elementary uh the e s s a side of things uh i when i started at nack it was the elementary and secondary education act that kind of shows you how old i am but um you know the title one money there is money in title one that can be used for college access there is uh there is the title for a programs under e s s a that that can be used for college awareness and and support for school counseling programs uh nack i gets conducted research in the past that shows working one-on-one with a school counselor increases the likelihood that a student will fill out the FAFSA by seven times and the the likelihood that a student will enroll in post-secondary education by four times um and so the the idea that we can provide one-on-one help for students particularly students of color and students from underrepresented backgrounds those are going to be really important areas where we can can bolster our our infrastructure to to help those students advance but fundamentally i do think that the one the one area where the federal government is uniquely situated is in that civil rights area that particularly with all of what's happening at the state level right now uh that we are destined to see these disparities potentially worsen for the next decade if these things if these if these if this momentum takes root in the states um and there will be significant differences between uh for lack of a better term blue states and red states and when one thing we know about the federal government's role in our policy infrastructure is that it is it is fundamentally uh an essential part of ensuring that civil rights uh for in this case for students are intact and if they're not the federal government has a has a role to act oh thank you yeah thank you for sharing um again um this was great um thank you for uh as i know it's early in the morning well it's not really early in the morning but i was like i feel like i've been fed um pretty good um thank you so much david um thank you for the work that you all are doing um again like i said myself and america we really appreciate you taking the time to speak with me um about what is unfolding here um and as we wait come most likely in june we'll be on pins and needles as we're seeing how how this impact is going to look like and what the future of higher education um can be and again for those who will be watching and tuning in to this um thank you so much um and i hope you take away a lot of good learnings here today on our discussion thank you thank you dayshon for having having us and and we certainly appreciate our our work with with the new america foundation thank you


Buenos dias. Did I say that right? I hope. How are we doing? Okay. Inventing the future. We live in a really interesting time for JavaScript, and at least I think it's interesting, and I'm kind of excited about it. And my goal here today is to share some of my excitement with you. So I'm told you can get remotes and things like that, but I'm old school. I actually go back to when people had actual physical slides in a carousel, so don't mind me as I wander back and forth. What I'm going to talk about today is the fact that we're at a time when JavaScript is about to have a serious bit of evolution. I'm not the only person talking about this. And I think it's kind of neat, because unlike programming languages of the past, which were designed, you know, by a few people in a university or something, and then sort of launched, we're now in a place where programming languages are crowdsourced. Many of the features coming to ES6 come because we, the users, complained and said that we wanted stuff. So the purpose of my talk today is to talk about some of the things I think we could be complaining about for ES7, basically. So JavaScript is a very old language in some ways. Its roots go back to the late 60s and 70s when you look at what inspired Brent and Ike to create JavaScript. And that's good in some ways, because many of those ideas were great ideas. However, time marches on, and we must march with it. And JavaScript has not marched on as well as it could have, and I argue it hasn't really embraced all of the older ideas as well as it could have, which is not a bad thing. Does anyone here know that JavaScript was originally invented as a server-side language, and the idea was to use Java in clients? So, you know, things have changed since it was first invented. And this is where we should be going. We should be able to take what was old and good, and expand into what is new, and also good, but good in a different way. And if you'd like to come visit me, that's the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, and I'd be delighted to go there with you. Let's start by looking at some of my influences. Oh, JavaScript's influences. I think I put this slide in here for Ross. You can probably name all three of them in that picture very easily. So, let's go back to when Reg was young, and Star Wars was something you went to a theatre to see for the first time. Here's a gentleman that some of the Spanish cycling fans will recognize, a great cyclist in his own right, and the best programming language in the world at that time, and many people argue still for some reason, was Lisp. And the idea that JavaScript stole, as everybody knows, at least everyone who's heard of JavaScript, the good parts, was first-class functions. And the functions were originally actually invented by an Iranian gentleman. I will not attempt to mangle his name, or discover it, I suppose, since they're an underlying truth. And I think, does everybody embrace the idea that JavaScript fundamentally is built out of functions? Everything you do, making classes and so on, methods are actually functions. Everything's a function. And one of the neat things about that is that you can write functions that transform functions. Now, it's kind of obvious you can write a function that takes a function as an argument and returns a function. And in theory, you could take a function, say, that adds two numbers together, and return a function that's correct spelling. That's theoretically possible. But what I mean by transforming is that you take a function, and you return a function that is similar to the original function, but is different in some way, like making it taller or shorter. That's not a good example. Perhaps you could take a function that sorts alphabetically and return a function that sorts numerically or something. The examples I give, once memoized and maybe, are all things you can find in popular libraries. Once, for example, takes a function, and returns a function that does what the original function did, but it only does it once. If you call it repeatedly, it doesn't do anything the second, third, fourth time. So here's a crazy idea. If your function is supposed to process a transaction, you know, instead of really spending a lot of time making sure that you never call that one twice, you could just wrap it in once and then not worry about it. Memoized does a similar thing. You can call it as many times as you want, but it only actually does the work the first time. And maybe is used for checking if something is undefined or not. If the argument is undefined or not, it just returns undefined or not. It takes a function and then turns it into another function that does a similar thing with a twist. Now, in addition to being able to use functions to transform functions, this idea of functions as first class objects that JavaScript gets from Lisp also takes into account the idea of composing functions. Now, this is a bit confusing because there is in fact a function called compose. But the general idea of composing functions is that you take two functions and you put them together in a way that retains the characteristic of both functions. So a very easy example is before. Take two functions and return a function that evaluates the first function, then evaluates the second function. After it does the same thing, only reverses them. Begin one and begin to do similar things but with lists of functions. They compose a new function out of the pieces of the old function. Compose does a similar thing with different argument orders. But the whole idea is that you have functions that take other functions and return functions. Now, I kept saying that these transformations or these compositions retain the character of the original functions. And that's important because if we look at a program, say that does banking, you're going to find some functions that are in the banking domain. They put money in an account or return a balance. And then you'll have functions that are not in the banking domain. They're cross cutting concerns, you could say if you're feeling very enterprising. Things like before, after. They're general purpose functions. And if you think of them very explicitly in these two piles, general purpose functions and functions in the sort of the programs domain, and you also have a little interest in math, you come up with something called a semi group. A semi group is a set of some kind. Since we're talking about functions, a set of functions, and an operation or a set of operations on those functions, and the key is the operation takes some of those functions and returns another function that's in the same set. My head hurts just saying that. So when we talk about something like before a function that takes two functions, then executes them in order or compose or after, those form a semi group with the functions in the domain. For example, if you have withdrawal from an account as a function and deposit to a different account as a second function and you combine them together, the result withdrawing from one function and depositing to another is still in the program domain. It's still a banking function. You haven't turned it from adding two numbers into a spelling checker. And this general idea that we can take some functions in our domain and then combine them to create another function in our domain that does something, has this complicated name, but more importantly, it has a really interesting consequence, which is that it makes it really easy if you design your program in this way to take little bits and pieces and put them together in different ways. For technicians, here's an example. Addition, if you add two numbers, you get another number. And another property for people who are into math is associativity. Whether you add them all together or add two and then the third or take the first and add it to the sum of the second, it all comes to the same thing. Any time something has these properties, namely that it takes two things in the domain and produces another one in the domain, namely that it has this associativity property, for example, begin has this or before has this, it makes it really easy to put together programs where you know what's going to happen. It makes it really easy to understand that there aren't some special side effects you don't have to worry about. When you just cram functions together willy nilly, you have a situation where if you decide later to rearrange them or insert another one in, make changes to code, you have to test everything, you have some uncertainty as to how it's going to work. Being able to build things in this kind of structured way allows you to reason about your programs and to write better programs. Now, all of that is just sort of airy fairy things. But here's the consequence. If you write programs in this manner, it's very easy to keep the pieces separate, to test them separately, to reuse them in a different way. This is something that isn't designed into JavaScript. It's something that arises from the properties of JavaScript in a natural way, provided we look for it and take advantage of it. I bring this up because when we look at where JavaScript came from, and then we look at something like this, if we said ES7 should make it easier to build programs in this style of composing functions, we wouldn't be saying, here's a new idea we stole from Haskell. We would be saying, here's an idea that was always there. Now we're just going to do it in a regular way. Now we're just going to do it in a more powerful way. This is something that's already there. We just need to pay attention to it. In the 80s, when this gentleman was stomping around the hills, this was the most interesting language in the universe. Well, possibly not, but certainly as far as JavaScript is concerned. This was the language that really sort of brought the idea of objects in encapsulation to the forefront. Now I think we all know what encapsulation is. No matter how complicated the bits are inside, from the outside, all you see are two hands that move, and I see sort of a plug and a winder on this, and there might be two things you can push in a winder. So there's a limited sort of interface from the outside, but the inside can be as complicated or as simple as you like. I understand that you can buy a Rolex, and it has a bunch of mechanisms like this, or if you go to certain types of malls, shopping places, you can buy something that looks like a Rolex, but if we open it up, there's some sort of quartz electronic movement inside. But from the outside, they both look like a Rolex. Encapsulation is very, very powerful because it has the similar property to what I mentioned earlier with this high-flute and word about semi-groups. When you have objects that have a very small interface to the outside world, it's easier to recombine them in different ways. The same idea is functions that you can combine them in different ways, objects can be combined in different ways. When you don't have encapsulation, when objects reach in and play with each other's interstate and so on, you cannot recombine them in new ways. They become very calcified, they become coupled. Unfortunately, even though we stole some ideas from small talk, encapsulation was not one of them. JavaScript resists encapsulation. You have to go out of your way to create encapsulation in JavaScript. Everything's public. This is an area when we're thinking about new directions to go, not just with the language, but with our programs, where we could pay some more attention to where JavaScript came from, to what we copied, to making sure that we get the, that it's not just that we use JavaScript the good parts, but when we think about how JavaScript learned from other languages, we use their good parts too. That's a tremendously egotistical thing. I'm about to talk about what small talk got wrong. Not a good idea. This was another, besides encapsulation, another primary tenet of small talk. Now, when Alan Kay and his colleagues invented, discovered, codified the idea of class hierarchies, of subclasses, they actually thought that these would not be used by everyday programmers. Their plan was that professionals would design class hierarchies, such as the one that's numbers and magnitudes in small talk is a brilliant class hierarchy. They thought that these things would be designed very carefully, very, very carefully, and then other people would use them and maybe extend off the bits of them, but they did not think that when you're building a banking app, that you spend a lot of time deciding that there's a checking, that there are accounts, and that some accounts are checking accounts, and some checking accounts are US dollar checking accounts, and some checking accounts are Euro checking accounts, and some checking accounts have fees, and some don't. They did not think that everyday programmers would spend a lot of time building class hierarchies, so they designed a tool essentially for professionals. Unfortunately, that's not how it turned out. People do design their own class hierarchies, and it's usually a pain, because once you get started, you wind up with these pyramids with a base class at the top, like object, and a bunch of stuff depending on it. The problem is that specialization, which is the fundamental idea behind using classes, or delegation with prototypes in JavaScript, specialization and encapsulation are kind of opposites. Specialization, as it's designed in most programming languages, and as it's practiced in JavaScript in the wild, involves classes that have, or prototypes in JavaScript, that have intimate knowledge of the interstate of the objects that extend them. When you write a prototype, you can modify any property of the object that delegates to that prototype, and if you have a chain of prototypes, they all can modify the same set of states, so they all become tightly coupled. They're not encapsulated from each other. Every class in the hierarchy ends up having a dependence, and a deep dependence, not a dependence on the methods of, but a deep dependence on the state changes, the properties that can be changed, of the objects in the, sorry, of the prototypes that are higher up in the chain. So you end up with something, just skip right over that, called the fragile base classes. The higher up a class is in the chain, the more stuff depends on it in a very messy non-encapsulated way. So we go out of our way to make object-oriented programs that have these nice encapsulated APIs for objects, and then the minute we start playing around with prototypes and classes, we reverse all of that and have everything just putting its hands in and mucking about. So that is something, I said small talk got wrong, that is something the world got wrong, this over dependence on it, and it would in fact be about 15 years later when people started popularizing patterns, that people started saying, ah, prefer composition to inheritance. People started to realize that inheritance is in fact an anti- pattern most of the time. It's to be used when you have no alternative, not as the first recourse. And when thinking about where we want to take JavaScript programs that we write, or the language that evolves from us expressing what we want from the language, we have to think about the fact that what small talk got wrong should not be the focus of where we evolve JavaScript. We should evolve away from that just as small talkers, if you find a professional small talker now, they've moved away from these things. Why should we copy their mistakes when we can copy the things that they got right? And then as a bonus, here's another thing small talk got wrong. Show of hands, how many people are familiar with the expression problem? Not enough. So the expression problem is very simple. We're writing a drawing tool, and we have pens, pencils, and so on, which we model as objects that have methods, draw, lift, display, a tool tip, display, an icon, you know, there's a whole set of behaviors for them. A standard kind of class oriented architecture makes it very easy to add a new tool. You want to add a brush, you just have to implement these methods, and then you extend some sort of prototype that has built in stuff, or you don't, and it just works. As long as it implements the same methods and has the same semantics, you can add a new tool. However, let's say we decide, oh, our drawing program should be collaborative in real time, so we're going to have to add some new methods, for example, to display over the network to somebody else, perhaps. I'm making this up as I go along, so don't take it too literally, but we need to add new behavior. Now it's not so easy. Now we have to, we have to go into every single class that implements every single tool and add new methods to it. The expression problem is that there's really two axes that need to be designed. Behavior and entities, and programming languages tend to make one easy at the expense of the other. Object-oriented languages that involve delegating to classes tend to make adding new entities easy at the expense of changing behavior where you have to go across a lot of, a lot of things and change their behavior, and that's the expression problem. Smalltalk doesn't have a great solution for it. I'm not going to give you a solution, but I would say that if you're aware of the problem and you think about it when you're programming, maybe you can come up with some good solutions for it, and if those become popular, some future version of JavaScript may bake those in. That's, that's how promises got in, that's how let got in, that's how fat arrows got in. People got so excited about it, they wrote entirely new programming languages that transpiled to JavaScript just so that they could have it, and then it got into the language. In the 90s, this fellow was dominating everything, Miguel Indurain. It's funny, does everyone see the, the theme of the cyclists that I'm showing? No, I guess it's not as clever as I thought it was. This was the programming language of choice. I was there, it's true. A programming language that gave you everything. You want to go in the water, it goes in the water. You want to drive on land, it drives on land. Actually, if it was C++ for real, it would have jet packs, it would have helicopters, you could do everything, and in a way nothing, because they were so hardcore about don't pay for what you don't need, that when you do need something, it's always really convoluted to do it. And this is the takeaway of what C++ got wrong. Unfortunately, it's something that Java copied. We copied the Algal syntax, the little braces, the fours, the wiles, the whatever. And syntax is something that helps languages be very approachable when you first learn them. It's nice to be able to see the difference between an if and a four at a glance, as opposed to have to read a keyword and understand what it, not to read a keyword, but as opposed to having to have something that a programmer defines or is a macro or something. However, syntax, its benefit is that it's standardized across everything, but the horrible part about it is that it is baked into the language in such a rigid way that all of the things that we can do with stuff like functions or objects, we can't do with the syntax in our language. Smalltalk, for example, had an idea of blocks, which are objects, and you can do anything with a block in Smalltalk that you can do with an object. Ruby has a similar idea with and unfortunately JavaScript does not. You can't take a function and reach inside of it and take a piece out. Now, I'm not suggesting that some future version of JavaScript should look like this. However, we should be aware that as we add new syntax to the language, we are slowly calcifying it, we are slowly making it harder and harder to make changes. Even now, when they're worrying about all sorts of new keywords and ideas and promises and things, they always have to sit there and say, is that backward compatible? Will it work with the parser? The syntax is there in place, is actually getting in the way. And meanwhile, new ideas we have, like promises, don't need syntax. People try sometimes to invent new languages that will somehow implement them with syntax, but fundamentally, they're not about syntax, they're about semantics. So I believe that in terms of inventing the future, we want to get away from special purpose syntax. Let's move forward in time a bit more to Alberto Contador, who's still racing today.  And this is how I feel about Ruby the language. It has everything in a much better way than C++ has everything, but it still has everything. And what people love about it is that they can write domain-specific languages. They can write stuff that's supposedly very easy to read. However, optimizing for being easy to read sometimes means that when you look at the implementation, it's really terrible. Behind the scenes, a lot of these testing frameworks and so on are incredibly ugly. And they're leaky abstractions. You really have to, as much as it looks really easy, you can't just do anything in them. If you actually start writing things in a different way, you kind of have to understand what the exact model is that makes it so easy to read. It can be helpful when you're writing things that need to be read by non-professionals, but actually is a bit of a trap if you're writing things for other professionals, because it ends up being more of a pain. And so I kind of feel like language features, like key words and so on, are a kind of technical debt. They give you something today, but down the road, you end up paying for them in terms of the inflexibility of the language and its features as you try to move things along. And I think we all know this. It's a problem with JavaScript. We copied this from other languages, and we pay for it. Everything becomes dependency management nightmare. Trying to keep track of, well, you have this module, and it has to be this version, and that module has to be that version. And how do the two mix if you can't upgrade? We copied these nightmares, almost line for line, and we could do better in the future. I think we should do better. So let's talk about now. Oh, there's a cheerful looking fellow. Looks happy. So I took earlier about semi-groups, this complicated word. It's not a complicated idea.  They like to have very specific words that mean very specific things, but it's not a complicated idea. The idea of things, be they functions or objects, be it a bank account or an interface or a class, the idea that we can compose them or transform them, they require encapsulation. If you don't have encapsulation, it's very, very hard to compose things. If you have two things and they both muck, say, with global state, you can't decide, well, I'm going to do A and then B, and then a little later in a program, decide I'm going to do B and then A, because they both mess with state in a certain way. In order to program in this style, while all of your pieces can be composed and transformed, you have to make sure that things are actually encapsulated. And I think it's easy to find examples, you look at programming languages like Haskell and so on, where people have done a lot of work with functions in this matter, with making monoids in Haskell. But not as much work with objects, because object-oriented programming has historically been in a different branch of the programming language tree from the functional programmer. But the idea works just as well with objects. When people talk about composition, it's not just has as we're going to make an object and it has little parts inside of it, but the idea, say, of using mixins, where you have behavior from one part and behavior from another and you mix them together, that's a form of composition too. And all those things are possible with objects, provided you design them to be transformable, composable, encapsulated, and you get decoupled for free. And I mentioned the idea with mixins. As it is now, the primary dominant way of writing made objects of designing behavior is with prototypes and prototype chains. And this is a highly coupled way of combining things. And it becomes highly static. And when you have a big, I don't know if you've ever tried refactoring some huge legacy Java app, I have, I used to work in banking. Those those big trees, those big class hierarchies are highly coupled, as much as people use patterns all over the place. They're hard to refactor even with tools. And being able to work with smaller composable parts saves you so much of this headache. However, implementing it is hard. For example, it's only a couple of lines of code to write something that will blend two behaviors together into an object. However, if you say, yes, but I'd like to blend two behaviors into an object that I will use as a prototype for another object and still have them decoupled, then it becomes complicated. Then you have to have some place if they do have state, you have to keep the state for each of those two separate, and you have to somehow save it. If it's going to be used as a prototype, you have to save it separately with each object. So maybe you create a property that has a name that you can't see and you make sure it's not enumerable and it's because there's a lot of nightmare in the implementation. This is a place where the language could help us a great deal. But it's only going to do that if we actually get out and start doing the things ourselves and then demand help from the language. One of the easiest ways to avoid me standing up here and talking about a word like semi groups is if we all get out of our comfort zone and learn some other programming languages. As long as we focus on our tool at hand, we become really, really good at doing what we were already doing with it. The way to get really, really good at doing something else with our tool is to become familiar with other tools. So get out, learn some Haskell. While you're at it, learn a programming language that's really, really good at taking objects and transforming them. Not just the language in terms of its features, but the community itself. Learn some closure. I talked about composable meta objects. This is not something I made up. These are things that are in languages like Scala and Go now. Go out, do some work with them. Read a little bit about them and then bring that back to JavaScript. Bring those ideas. JavaScript has already copied from Lisp, Smalltalk, C++ and Ruby. Go forth, get ideas from other languages and let's use them. We're kind of at a neat time. Speaking of time, how are we doing for time? Does anyone know? I have no idea. Nobody knows. There we are. So let's wrap up. JavaScript is kind of a neat language in that I think of it as a blank canvas. It doesn't actually have classes. However, it has things you can use to build classes. It doesn't have mixins, but it has things you can use to build mixins. Now, if I say that JavaScript is a meta-object one language, but you can build meta-object twos, I'd be using jargon again. Ruby, how many people here use Ruby? Right. So Ruby is a meta-object two language. In that, it's meta-objects, classes and modules. They have methods, but they're not the methods that they confer upon objects that extend or use them. Right? It has a method like methods that gives a list of methods. The actual methods you'd get by implementing that class, of course, would be a different set. There's two kind of worlds going on in a Ruby class or a Ruby module. The methods and behavior it confers and the methods and behavior it has as an object. Small talk works the same way. JavaScript and Python are meta-object one languages. The methods of a prototype are the methods that it confers upon something that delegates to it. So, getting back to what I said, this is not a feature of JavaScript made of object twos, but you can build them. Everything's like that. Promises are not a feature of JavaScript, but people just built them. So, I think, as we go forward, the idea is to keep JavaScript small in that way. We talked last night at the speaker's dinner about good magic and bad magic. I like magic. But bad magic is kind of a leaky abstraction. It kind of like works really well in the demo or for this specific thing. It has a complicated implementation behind the scenes, a lot of code. Good magic is like, did you know a couple of lines of code in this wonderful thing happens? Good magic kind of arises naturally from the capabilities of the language. The canonical example would be the way that closures work in JavaScript. This is not some magical thing that involves a lot of implementation to get a function that gets some state from the function that created it. It just arises naturally from the way lexical scope works in JavaScript. It's very good magic. As JavaScript moves forward, I would like to see us keep that nature of JavaScript, that there's a few things that happen to work together and then wonderful things arise naturally from those small parts. And I'd like to see this be our philosophy in the community that we don't look back and say, you know what? We copied classes in ES6 with the class keyword but we left all of these things out that are in Ruby. I don't think we should be that way. I think we should look back, understand it, see what the good parts are but we shouldn't sort of bend ourselves to trying to catch up to what languages we're doing 40 years ago. I mean, really, we have this opportunity. Why don't we look at languages that are new now, that are doing great things now, not languages that were great when I was in high school? We should be looking at Haskell closure, Scala, we should be saying what are these people doing? What's happening with in these other areas? And I know, I keep talking as if everybody here is designing the next version of JavaScript but you are. This is very community driven language. Things that were in jQuery are now a standard sort of way of doing things and may one day become a standard part of the language itself. Our language evolves as we evolve our programs. So it is our responsibility. And so I asked you to ask yourself, I've told you what JavaScript copied from 40 years ago or from 30 years ago or from 20 years ago or from 10 years ago. What will people copy from JavaScript 10 years from now? If the answer is nothing because we're just copying stuff from 10 years ago, that is an unacceptable answer. We're wasting our lives. What will people copy from us 10 years from now? What will people copy from us 20 years from now? What idea is somebody 10 years from now maybe someone who isn't even born today is designing a new programming language and they'll say, I've got to steal this from JavaScript. That's what we should be inventing today. And with that, I'm done. Gracias. The question was, what do you think about the kind of metaprogramming you can do with a Lisp? Yes. So the question is, what about having a small kernel and then you use macros in order to develop more things on top of that? That is an excellent question. So it sort of touches on the question of should there be syntactic sugar such as the class keyword, which is very different than a feature like a co-routine which cannot be implemented in a macro. And generally, you know, people sometimes say, oh such and such is just syntactic sugar. So the definition of kind of syntactic sugar is can something be done with local transformations like a macro or by parsing the language and changing something or does something require a more global change to a program? Something like, so something like continuations, for example, cannot be implemented with macros. That involves changing the way every single function call and method call works. Something like changing the behavior of the this keyword would involve, if you wanted to do it with, you couldn't do it with macros. You'd have to change the way every single thing function call and method call worked. So I love Lisp and I love macros. However, I recognize, I think that there are some limitations in that some of the ideas that are really exciting. For example, I didn't mention it, but a really fertile area in the future is things like the this keyword. How does it work? Making it work a different way. And so, I would say it would be limited to only do that because you can only make local changes. For example, you could create your own class keyword or create your own mix-in keyword or some more traits and things. Those are very easy to do with macros, but there are other features co-routines, generators, and so on yield keyword that are not amenable just to the macro. So other work would still have to be done. Is that an answer to your question? Okay. To our next question? Yeah. Thank you for that. There's a mic coming just behind you now as well. You've all a passionate plea to keep the core language small in a sense you would argue that you've already lost because ES6 is ES4 reincarnated and I don't see it improving in the near future. There will be more syntax. There will be more constructs. There will be more convoluted artifacts introduced to the language. So isn't the possible escape the concept of JavaScript as the assembly language being used to, for example, languages like closed script or Faye or whatever thing you'd argue for and what the sense of source maps that could be a possible future? Yes. And that's a really interesting future. You'll hear from Jeremy tomorrow about JS Next and CoffeeScript. I'm a big enthusiast. I think that when it comes to JavaScript being the assembly language though you don't need ES6 for JavaScript to be the assembly language. As a matter of fact, Mozilla has something. I'm sorry. I've only had one coffee this morning. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but they have a subset of JavaScript that's designed specifically as a compilation target. ASMVGS. That's the one. And so you don't really need anything else. You can just compile to that. I think it's a very valid strategy to have a completely different language that compiles to JavaScript. I was speaking to improving JavaScript as a language that we write programs in but writing a new programming language is the ultimate form of programming. So I like that too. I like that as well. You should probably listen to some fellow who's going to talk about closure script, I think, at this very conference. There was a lot of that in C Sharp as well and they introduced things like Link into C Sharp and suddenly you had built within the language almost another language that was compiling down to the language. That's a lot of... One more question? Do we have another question? No. That's great. All right. Thank you very much, Edgernal. Thank you very much.


We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You're new and used Jeep Headquarters today. We are checking out this super clean 2018 Jeep renegade Limited package this vehicle has the 2.4 liter four-cylinder Multi-air motor from this HD video you will be able to tell that this Jeep is like new all the way around Very low miles on this vehicle. It does have the HID headlight group Black clear coat is the color We shoot all of our videos in 1080p So if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or smartphone device Turn them on right now because it is like you're right here looking at the vehicle with me This one has the 18 inch painted and polished aluminum rims Kumo Krugin 225 55 r 18 tires with just about all the tread left As we come around at the front here No dents or dings on that hood The grille is in excellent condition Passenger side rim is absolutely perfect We know this one has super low miles on it But we always want to make sure that we give the most accurate representation possible So that you can make a smart buying decision from the comfort of your own home Very clean down this side Didn't see any dents or dings down Any of the doors here all the lower plastic looks really good This back rim is absolutely perfect. No scuffs or scratches What I love about the renegades is they got four-wheel disc brakes on them So You know good stopping power even though you got a little vehicle Still really good stopping power has a capitalist fuel fill And if you ever saw there's a little spider there that says chow baby That's where you put the food As we come around to the back You can see that this one does have the backup sensors Has the chrome tipped exhaust the rear gate is an excellent conditional dents or dings on that This is a four by four looking taillights As we come around to the back here Very clean No rips or tears on this piece does have a storage compartment underneath And then all these renegades they come with tire inflator kits And what's cool about this board is you can put it down a little bit lower If you wanted to uh Have a little bit more secure space and a little bit more room Can do that. It also has the sunshade Which goes down obviously when you put the back down But just a little nice Nice little added extra feature has the backup camera right there And as you go down this side of the vehicle just as clean as that passenger side Lastly this back rim is absolutely perfect as well It looks still has some of the sticker on it from when it was brand new But very very clean down this side no dents or dings This one has the blind spot monitoring And it has a built-in directional signals in the mirrors that has the enter and go system And as we hop inside here, you can see that this limited package gives you the black Leather interior. There are no rips. There are no tears in these seats You get the embossed jeep logo or jeep front on the Backrest there side curtain airbags power Driver seat factory all-weather floor mats Power windows power locks and power mirrors. You got the speakers in the shape of carabiners Has the auto headlamps And as we hop inside here, you can see that this vehicle indeed does Only have 1189 miles comes with a full tank of fuel. So There is a plus right there. We have the heated Leather wrap steering wheel no rips or tears on that cruise controls information center controls And the bluetooth audio controls This one has AM, FM and serial satellite radio capabilities. This is also where your backup camera shows up This is considered the 5.0 touchscreen You have heated seats heated steering wheel backup sensors right there. You got dual climate control And down here you have your full-wheel drive system So you got auto snow sand and mud you can just select those different terrains And then you can just lock it in place by pressing that button Like that feature on the renegades has augs and usb jack and yellow storage Area down there is in the design of a topographical map. So A lot of little stuff nuances that they did with this car To make it seem more off-road and in tune with nature Backrest is very clean on that. See no rips or tears Factory all-weather floor mat on that side. You can see that the headliner Is in really nice condition no rips or tears on that And we will take a quick look at the back seats and then check out under the hood Back seats are just as clean as the front seats. No rips. No tears back here Does have the latch child safety system for your car seats Very very clean all-weather floor mats back here, and it does have a 115 volt 150 watt plug-in as you can see those seats do go down It does have some cupholders in that center console Armrest I think pull that down like so And very clean back here. We'll take a quick look under the hood. Thank you so much for checking out the video Hopefully from the video you'll get that this Jeep is absolutely perfect all the way around and uh Really nice vehicle Should be with only 1,100 miles, but we always want to make sure that Our customers are 100 confident in the vehicle And the people that they're buying it from engine base very clean runs very smooth Very very clean all the way around like new And to see more pictures of this Jeep Renegade or one of our other 400 new and used cars trucks SUVs minivans wranglers you name it. We got to go to our website www.SummitAuto.com Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle on our lot videos of every used vehicle that we have for sale All at www.SummitAuto.com if you want to check out just our used inventory you can go to truckson41.com that's truckson41.com Go there check us out and if you want to make this Jeep yours give us a call right now<PHONE_NUMBER> Ask for one of our sales associates to make this a Jeep Renegade limited years today. Once again that number is<PHONE_NUMBER> Thanks again for checking out the video and if you want to check out more you can go to youtube.com slash Summit Auto Remember to like subscribe and share on this vehicle and all the videos that you see there In fact in a second you'll see a link to subscribe to our youtube channel on your left A link to more Jeep Renegade and used inventory vehicles like this one on your right And if you haven't been to our website on the bottom link to this vehicle on our website Click those checks out and we really look forward to helping with this super clean 2018 Jeep Renegade limited. Thanks again


So let's do a specific worked example. Let's say we had water at room temperature, say 20 degrees centigrade. And we want to put it in a frying pan. And we want to boil it dry. So it's all turned into steam. How much energy will it require? Well, first of all, you've got water at 20 degrees C. And you're going to need to increase it to 100 degrees C. Now that's specific heat capacity. So the energy you need to do that is equal to the normal equation of the specific heat capacity, which is the mass times the specific heat capacity times the change in temperature. Which in this case, specific heat capacity of water is 4186 joules per kilogram per Kelvin. Let's say we have 2 kilograms of water. That would be a nice big saucepan. This is 2. Change in temperature, going from 20 to 100. So that'll be 80 Kelvin, change in temperature. But then once it's got to water at 100 degrees, you have to turn it into steam at 100 degrees. And that's going to need the latent heat. So we now need to add the mass times the latent heat, which is this 226500 joules per kilogram. So this equals the mass, 2 kilograms times the latent heat, a specific heat capacity, 4186, times the change in temperature, plus the mass, 2 kilograms, times the latent heat of vaporization, 226500, which comes out as a whopping 5199760 joules. So about 5 megajoules. So that's why it takes so long to boil a kettle. It takes to boil it dry, a lot of energy is required.


Moving right along, we have a lot to cover today. I'm Kay Cizer from the Research Office, and thank you for having us today. I'm going to talk about getting started, getting started as far as resources, how to learn how to write a grant proposal, how to find grants. And then I'm going to take a little bit of time quickly to demo pivot, CUS pivot, in case you've never seen a demonstration of that. It's a very nice system that can help you do customized grant searches. Set them up so that you get email alerts through your email. And so, yes, we'll take a little time to do that. Okay, just in case there is some confusion about this, we sometimes refer to ourselves as RCAT. And what that is is research, creative activities, and technology transfer office. It's a multiple. But basically, we are the central administrative office on campus for all research activities. So we are a service office, we're here to help you. Sponsored programs is a subunit of RCAT. And we sometimes refer to that as SPA, S-B-A, that's the acronym for Sponsored Programs Administration. We're located up in the Research and Technology Park, just west of the parking lot, the Fargo Dome parking lot. That's our facilities, and this is what the entrance to our building looks like. What can RCAT do for you? Well, here is our website. And I would like to encourage you to get familiar with our website because you can get a lot of information there. You can get forms, you can get guidance about the process, what we're going to talk about today. And you can find out about staff, which is the right contact person, you know, regarding whatever question you might have. You know, I'm going to back up just a minute before I go further. There is a handout coming around today that has the main components of a proposal, and I just want to address that for a minute. We're not going to talk about how to write the narrative of a grant proposal today. That's a whole other workshop, or maybe even several other workshops. Marie and Ona are going to talk about the budget aspects a little later on. But I just want to say one thing about writing grant proposals. You'll see in the handout the main components of a grant proposal, and of course that varies a bit depending upon what program you're applying to, the nature of your project, and so on. But I want to encourage you to learn how to write good objectives. The project description is the real heart of your grant proposal. And as the handout says, there's five sections to that project description. Okay, two of them are objectives and methods. And sometimes your grant guidelines use different terminology to refer to these things. But essentially that's what it is. And it's important that you learn how to write good objectives. Objectives are different than goals. A goal is a higher level, loftier thing. See, I don't have the handout in front of me. But if you read what it says there about, objectives are measurable. And that's a very important thing. They're very specific and they're measurable. Because by the end of your grant project, both you and the grant agency need a way to determine whether you've met what you promised to do in your project. And that's what good objectives will do for you. They will be specific, they will be measurable, and they will be a way for the grant agency and for you yourself to know whether you've accomplished what you said you were going to do. So that's the single thing I wanted to say about writing grant proposals. Now on the back of that handout, there are some excellent online websites for learning how to write grant proposals. And in fact, what I was just talking about, the objectives, writing good objectives, is addressed very nicely in that first one. The Foundation Center's proposal writing short course. So take a look at that site. It's excellent and really eye-opening as far as what a good grant proposal should contain. So just wanted to make that point about writing proposal narrative. Now we'll get back to our resources. I talked about the website for forms, guidance, and staff. We have an email newsletter that is produced monthly during the academic year. It goes to the faculty and staff listserv. So hopefully you're already receiving it and I'll show you what it looks like in a few minutes. Just in case you're not getting it, let us know. We have geared for grant seminars that cover a range of topics. Some of the topics are about writing grants. Some are really more focused on research, conducting the research. Different aspects of the whole grants process. And certainly watch for those and take advantage of them. We have an informal group called grant coordinators that anyone is welcome to join if you're involved with grantsmanship. And this group meets occasionally, not on a real regular schedule. But it's basically a support group and a place to ask questions and in a way for our office to get important information out to the campus community. We also have a pilot project right now called grant proposal assistance awards. It's our office working with the Center for Writers and providing assistance writing the narrative of a grant proposal. Now this is just about content. It's not about coordinating the proposal. It's not about entering it into the online electronic system or anything. But if you have trouble with the actual writing organization, this might be an option. And then the last point I want to make is feel free to call or email our office with questions. Because we are a service office and we want to be of help to you. How can you learn to write a grant proposal? There are lots of online resources. That's really where to go these days. You can take a training course. There's a handout that came around that has the upcoming schedule for the grantsmanship center courses. Now those are excellent.  So it's a real commitment. But I know that Deb has taken the course and said that it was great and worth the time. My two cents worth is that they also now have a short course like a three day version as well as a week version. The week one you actually write it and they will critique it while you're there. The short course, it's less of that. But the same core principles both are outstanding. So if you're interested in really digging in, those are the... I think there is one coming up in St. Paul. That's probably the closest that it's going to get in the next six months or so. The Minnesota Council on Foundations also offers a nice course on writing grant proposals. Again, you might have to go to St. Paul or the Twin Cities to get to that too. And we can find information on that on our website. Talk to colleagues. You probably already know this. If you have grant coordinator in your department, certainly take advantage of that. Find people within your discipline that can discuss content with you. Find people who have experience with grants that can talk to you about the process. And of course our office. And then I would just encourage you to jump in. It's intimidating if you've never done it before. When you find a grant program that looks really intriguing to you and you really would like to pursue it, the first thing you need to do is to get the application kit. And that will include detailed guidelines, instructions on how to put together the proposal. It may include forms and any other information you need. And it's very important that you get your hands on that and that you study it closely. The number one reason why proposals fail is that people don't follow instructions. Now some programs are very detailed. If we're talking about a federal grant program, they give you instructions right down to how large the font can be, how large the margins. Very detailed. But in a way that's kind of nice because you just need to do it, right? Step by step and there you've got your proposal. Private sources are a lot more ambiguous sometimes about what a grant proposal looks like. But certainly use whatever instructions you can find. Now how do we find out about grants? Again, pay attention to where your colleagues and others are getting funding until you're actually in the business of needing to look for a grant. We don't pay a lot of attention to those things. Online searches, you will even have luck using Google to find a grant program. You know, it's amazing how that actually works pretty well and it's free. But certainly grants.gov is another great free source. It's just that it is restricted to federal grant programs. So any federal grant program you can get to on grants.gov. And you can sign up for email alerts and I would certainly encourage you to do that. If you find an agency that you know is a good one for you, investigate whether they have an email list, an alert list that you can sign up for so that you're automatically getting these alerts in your email. You don't have to always be actively going out and searching for it. And of course, last is Pivot. And I'm going to take just a few minutes to demo that for you. Pivot is subscription based so NDSU is paying for this for you. It's a customized grant search system. Very nice. It takes, you know, a little bit to sort of get oriented to it. But once you get set up, once you're registered and set up, you really only need to go in maybe once a semester. Okay. Tweak your information, maybe update your profile, add a search, delete a search, whatever. You can have as many grant searches as you want. Now Pivot is for any discipline, any scholarly activity, and it's not just government, okay, like Grants.gov. It's government as well as private sources. So private foundations and other miscellaneous things like American Heart Association and so on. They're all there. Okay, so we're going to go out to Pivot. Let's see, I promised. Okay, I should show you how to get to Pivot from... Okay, here's NDSU's webpage. I promised to show you a few of these things on the web. To get to the ARCAD or the Research Office, the easiest way is up here on the white menu bar if you click on Researchers. And this is our website. You can see there are some menu options here for finding funding opportunities, forms and so on. Over here on the left, the one I want to point to is Sponsored Programs Administration. That's our group here today that's talking about how to get through the Grants process. And this is that website. Now, when you click on Sponsored Programs Administration, you get a pull-down list of some other options here. Forms is one of them, funding opportunities. Institutional information, this is a great page for finding out about fringe benefit rates and indirect cost rates and so on. Proposal preparation, if you click on that link, you can get to the proposal writing resources, some of which are on your handout. Staff lists, you know, the people that are here today in addition to some others. If you need contact information and, of course, training, lists the Grantsmanship Center, the Minnesota Council on Foundations seminars that are coming up. But to find Pivot, to get back to Pivot, click on Funding Opportunities. You can either here on your Sponsored Programs Admin or over here. Okay, and you see Pivot right at the top. That's a link. Now, you also have a handout that has the actual direct URL on it, so you're welcome to get to it that way. This is what the home screen looks like. Now, in the upper right corner is where you log in. And some of you may already have login or registration information. If you're logging your password, that's great. If you don't, I'll help you later. We don't want to take time with that today. But I'm going to log in. Okay, and once I log in, I'll see my name in the upper right corner. That's how you know you're logged in. Now, really, you can use Pivot from any desktop at any issue without logging in. But if you are off campus, you have to log in in order to use all the screens. You'll get partway, but you'll run into some road box that it won't let you through, because, like I said, it's subscription-based. So you do probably want to be registered and have a login, because once you create a grant search that you like, you want to be able to save it, right? And have those email alerts coming to you. So you have to be registered in order to do that. Okay, you'll see here some tabs. There are two main components to Pivot. One is grant searches. That's the funding tab. The other is called profiles, and that's the expertise profiles. Now, some of you probably have profiles in the system, even though you don't even know it, because Pivot draws from a scholar universe, which is a product that's out there, and it goes out and bleeds information about scholars.  Another thing here is you'll have an account in the system, but you want to also link it to your profile if you have a profile. Some of you won't have profiles. We may just have an account, and that's fine. We're going to concentrate on funding today, because that, of course, is what your reason for getting into this is. And let me just try a search. You'll see there's a search box right at the top here. You can search by text or keyword that has to do with your project, or you can search by sponsor. So let's try text, and I'm going to just try diabetes as an example. Click on the Search Pivot button, and you'll see we have 280 grant programs. Just like that, right? Okay. Now, 280 is really too many, isn't it? So I'm going to show you how to refine that search a bit. Click on Refine Search at the top, and one frustration that people find is that this is a worldwide system. So you might be pulling up grant programs that are for Europe and Australia and so on, and that's, you know, obviously you want to weed that out. So if you click on Activity Location here, I click first on Refine Search, then Activity Location. Click here on More Locations. It pulls up a pull-down list. You see United States with a little plus sign. Click on the plus because that will pull down the subunits of the United States, and we're looking for North Dakota. Click on that. Close the window. Now we see North Dakota listed here beside Activity Location. Click on Search again, and we went from 280 to 156. So weeded out all that extra stuff that won't work for a project in North Dakota. Okay, so we still have 156 grant programs. Now over on the left here, we have what are called faceted searches. These are sub-searches. So if you're doing research, there are 113 grant programs that might work. If you're doing program or curriculum development, there are 18. Well, that's really a pretty manageable list. Okay, so you see you go step by step to refine your search. Then when you get something that's usable, we want to save that search. So up to top, and these are links by the way. I haven't even showed you. I'm going so fast. If we click in on one of these, you have great detailed information about that grant program, including the URL that will take you directly to that agency. So out of pivot and directly to the agency. So it's really excellent preliminary information. But back to our search. I just want to show you how to save it. Click on save search at the top. Name it whatever you'd like, whatever is meaningful to you, because it's only you that's going to see that. And then it asks you, would you like to receive a weekly email containing newer, updated opportunities from this query? And you will want to check that box and click save. And then you will begin receiving emails. If each week the system will run this search over again, and it will send you any new information, any new grant programs that it finds. Okay, there's a lot more I could be showing you. But I think we better stop. We're going to run out of time. I am available to answer any questions. Please email me. If you're frustrated with the system. If you've registered already and you're getting these weekly emails and they're actually more of a frustration than anything, it's because you need to tweak your searches a bit or maybe update your profile. Because the system actually uses your profile to find automatic grant opportunities for you as well. So I need to stop to give some of these others a chance to speak. But please get in touch with me and I'll help you register, conduct a search, whatever is helpful to you. And while we transition, I want to know how many of you have used Pivot? Okay, so not anywhere near the majority in here. And for those of you who are seeking grants, pay as the person if you struggle getting signed up. Call or direct. She'll walk you through it. But get signed up. I signed up for several things and I just find it interesting to see what's out there, even though I don't do tons of grant writing. And then occasionally I'll see something that I'll funnel to somebody because it looks interesting. So it's a nice little newsletter almost, just a constant little reminder of things out there. And we really do need to use it because if we don't, we'll lose it. Because there is a high, I have to price take for it. And every couple of years this inscription comes due and they'll want to assess whether people are using it, if it's been helpful. And I'll be looking for some testimony for people that have had success using it and actually maybe got a grant because of that information.