Spilling so much tea that I replaced my rug

Listen, I’m not going to lie. That was rough.

I don’t quite know how to feel about the research article. On the one hand, I am quite ecstatic about my performance. I feel as though I put in a lot of effort into learning what exactly happened in Module Two. On the other hand, that was insane. Like always, I didn’t realize just how “in-the-dark” I was until I started creating figures and interpreting the results. I honestly had little to no idea how to interpret the RNA sequencing data. To be quite honest, I didn’t even realize we had RNA sequencing data to interpret until the final lecture of Module Two. After many questions, some repeated multiple times, the lightbulb started flickering in my head. Granted, the lightbulb wasn’t fully lit, but something was definitely there.

So, I started. The methods section wasn’t too terribly difficult because of the comments and lecture discussion on editing our methods draft. Next, I wrote the introduction. This might have been out of order, but I wanted to achieve some narrative structure, and I had some ideas that I didn’t want to forget. Then I began writing the results and discussion. Even though I began to uncover what interpretations could be extrapolated from the figures I created, it was still difficult to articulate these ideas in a way that fit the narrative of my article. Once I ‘overcame’ this obstacle—as in I decided to just go with what I had—I finally wrote the abstract and the title. Then I was done.

Time for the true tea.

*A disclaimer, I do not mean to be rude or come off as extremely negative. I only mean to give my true and honest opinions about this article from my perspective.

1. The methods section. I do understand that the length of each section on the wiki was merely a suggested guideline, but I found it implausible for me to write the methods section in 3-4 pages. There were many experiments and procedures that needed to be written down that I found this expectation a tad questionable, at least for someone with little experience with scientific writing like myself. Again, I realize that I need to refine my skills in concise and efficient scientific writing, but I am only a beginner, so it was extremely difficult for me.
2. The discussion section. Or rather, the ‘future experiments’ discussion. This is where I find the class most troubling as someone with no previous lab experience. I feel as though there is an expectation to come into 20.109 with an understanding of experiments and assays done in research. I, unfortunately, do not meet this unspoken expectation. As such, I found it quite impossible, within the time frame of this assignment, to explore different types of experiments that could be relevant to this particular article. Because of this, I maintain that 20.109 should have a disclaimer stating previous laboratory experience is strongly suggested.
3. The time restraint. This is more of a personal issue. I had little to no time to complete this assignment. From the day I could start working on this assignment (Wednesday) to the due date (Saturday), I got a total of 9.5 hours of sleep. I spent all my time trying to complete this assignment along with my Biochemistry assignment. Despite my running on fumes, I still barely finished 30 minutes before 22:00. I still don’t know how I stayed awake in any of my classes.

Toward the end of this assignment, I was so over it. I really just wanted it to be done.

I am hopeful that Module Three won’t be so… Module Two-esque. Here’s to a possibly misplaced hope.