What is missing in the paper are any comparisons of key operational characteristics, such as charge efficiency and charge rate.

It is well known that trickle charging NMC cells also greatly increases cycle lifetime. Are you willing to turn a 15-minute charging stop to 150 hours? Where does pulse charging fall on the spectrum between trickle charging, Level 1, Level 2 and 50C DC fast charging (DCFC)?

I find it interesting their 100 Hz pulse rate just happens to match that of a rectified 50 Hz line frequency. I'm wondering if they did prior work in this area, though I'll not bother to check. I mean, even a small improvement to Level 1 or Level 2 charging would be worth shouting about. I hear no shouting.

It is equally well known that pulsed charging can be far less efficient than continuous charging, meaning more battery heating for a given net charge rate, leading to knock-on effects for cooling and/or overall rate. EV DCFC is a carefully choreographed dance between charge rate and battery temperature. How would their pulsed charging affect this balance?

It seems the paper goes to great lengths to avoid mentioning any behaviors OTHER than improved cycle lifetime (and reasons for that improvement). Meaning they had no results worth sharing in other areas.

In real life, we are generally willing to sacrifice overall battery lifetime to obtain greater usability. Simply put, EVs and phones taking longer to charge would be less useful and would fare worse in the competitive market.

Presently, the best way to extend NMC battery lifetime is to charge at the minimum rate needed to barely reach the desired state of charge JUST before the vehicle/phone is needed for use, which for most EVs is accomplished by overnight Level 2 charging. My Pixel 7a does this every night, slowing the charge rate to be fully charged about an hour before my alarm is set to go off, where the maximum "quick" charge rate would take well under an hour. How would pulse charging affect this use case?

Updated chemistries combined with improved fabrication and packaging techniques and evolved charge finish curves are steadily reducing the battery aging incurred by frequent DCFC. In practice, DCFC is recommended for use from 10% SoC to 80% SoC simply to avoid the long delays of the charge finish curves, to free up the charger much sooner. How would pulse charging affect this?

Also, EV manufacturers are simply de-rating battery capacity from the start, keeping some "in reserve" to be revealed as the battery ages, to ensure the stated "useful capacity" is retained throughout the full battery warranty. This gamesmanship is perfectly acceptable, though it directly hurts overall efficiency, as that "reserve" capacity represents excess weight that is carried for the life of the vehicle, as well as excess purchase cost. So far, the market totally approves. How would pulse charging affect this? Could it lead to smaller (and thus cheaper) EV batteries for the same cycle lifetime and capacity retention, with no visible impact to daily use?

With NO indications of the operational system effects incurred by pulsed charging, this research is interesting without being directly meaningful.

I've developed aircraft sensors and cockpit instrumentation, and taken them through testing to FAA certification. From start to finish, one of our guiding lights was to have a painless (but far from effortless!) path to FAA certification. Our internal processes, especially concerning documentation, testing and analysis, were absolutely central to that goal. Our internal joke was we were "a testing and certification company that happened to make aircraft instrumentation". Our CEO actually liked this moniker, and used it often with customers, at industry events, and even with the FAA.

As a small company, there was no way we could make all this work on our own. We relied heavily on our FAA-certified DERs (Designated Engineering Representatives), who we contracted with as TRULY independent consultants. We had a clean professional separation with our DERs, giving them total freedom to apply their skills on our behalf, no matter how large or small the issue, no matter how simple or difficult. Our DERs, and our relationship with them, were the "secret weapon" to our success. Our CEO went to great lengths to identify and contract the "best professional assholes" he could find in the DER community, who in turn pushed us to be our very best.

Boeing hired many of their DERs as direct employees, burdening them with an ethical conflict between wanting to meet their FAA mandate while also keeping their jobs. There is evidence that Boeing managers used various forms of social manipulation to give the DERs imaginary "wiggle room" around their ethical conflicts.

At our small company, while we made full use of many of Boeing's contributions to the aviation and aerospace industry (including the MISRA C coding standard), we were always shaking our heads about how Boeing was likely squandering the true value of their DERs by having them be employees. We discussed this with our own DERs, to contrast our own relationship with them, and to see if it could be improved in any way.

We also discussed the perceived risks to Boeing, beyond the obvious ethical conflicts, to see how their engineering, testing and certification processes might be affected. The first concern came from Boeing's management structure, which we thought could force their DERs to have "tunnel vision", focusing on minutia while possibly missing system-level concerns. Our processes had many "zoom-in, zoom-out" phases, where each issue was traced up and down through all levels of the project, something that was relatively easy for a small company to do, and which we doubted Boeing's DERs had the flexibility to do as a routine practice.

Similarly, as a small company our DERs had total lateral vision, meaning they could look at a software issue and step over to look at the hardware running that software, then step over again to look at the chassis holding the hardware that ran the code. At Boeing, these aspects could be in different buildings, in different states and even in different countries! We felt that independent DERs could establish their own shadow organization to map Boeing's, and create a separate safety and process overview system and network across the Boeing's many disparate parts.

When viewed from these perspectives, Boeing's in-house DERs made less and less sense to us, and in fact added distinct risks to Boeing products, passengers and to the company itself.

I await the reports from Boeing's various ongoing outside audits and reviews. Especially concerning the issue of independent overview by their DERs.

To get that 50% thrust boost, the Boron fraction in the water propellant must be fairly high, meaning the propellant mass increased, which courtesy of the Rocket Equation means the *net* thrust improvement won't be 50%.

Next, we must examine the efficiency from the Boron perspective, which, without knowing plasma temperatures and density (other than being high enough to support p-B fusion), still must mean the Boron efficiency would be fairly low, perhaps miniscule, primarily due to no fusion occurring on the edges of the thruster plume, and perhaps being limited to just a thin core down the center of the plasma, in a small region that is rapidly expanding as thrust develops. With the Boron evenly distributed throughout the water propellant, I'd expect relatively little of the Boron will be in areas able to support b-B fusion.

We're talking about mean-free-paths here, combined with the p-B fusion cross-sectional area (in Barns) and the plasma flow rate. About 40 years ago I did these calcs for neutrons with various fissile materials in a plasma environment, but not for protons and fusion, where charge must be taken into account.

Still, it doesn't need to work efficiently to be useful right away. Right?

But it may get worse. How will the 719 and 478 KeV gamma flux from fusion affect the spacecraft? Will additional payload shielding be needed, further lowering the net thrust gain?

I really want to see those SBIR reports.

Just sayin'.

The goal should not ONLY be to provide more charging options to renters, but instead to FIRST minimize the need for charging in the first place. What if an EV could be made so efficient that it could charge from Level 2 (240 VAC charging) as fast as most current vehicles charge from DCFC (DC Fast Charging)?

Let's step back a bit. When efficient ICE vehicles started flooding the market in the 1970s, we called the previous vehicles "gas hogs". We need a similar flood in the EV market to make it clear that the vast majority of today's EVs are "watt hogs".

Current technology lets the weight of an affordable EV be cut in half, which, along with drag optimizations, means the battery size can be cut roughly in half WITHOUT reducing vehicle performance. Where are the vehicles making use of this technology? Well, until now, they've mainly been in luxury cars, hypercars and Formula One cars. The BMW i3 made some great steps in this direction, but failed in some of the other areas needed for a successful vehicle.

I'm aware of only ONE vehicle company that has been laser-focused on efficiency in every step of their design and manufacturing processes. Manufacturing? Yes: If your super-tech vehicle can't be built at huge scales, then it can't directly affect the market.

As for the design, it all starts with the shape. At highway speeds, the majority of a vehicle's energy goes into moving air out of the way. If you can reduce that energy, you win. Today's designs are making incremental progress on that goal, but they ALL continue to tweak the same basic shapes used by decades of ICE vehicles, rather than try something truly different and vastly more efficient.

It's also important to target this efficiency at the market segments needing it most. Today, that would be those who commute to work, the vast majority of whom drive solo, run errands during lunch or on the way home, and on average commute just 40 miles per day. What would it mean to HALVE the energy use of all daily commutes everywhere?

First, it would mean optimizing the vehicle for 2 occupants, mainly to keep minimize both the payload weight and the interior volume. Not a family vehicle, but a commuting vehicle, preferably with enough cargo space for Costco runs, and perhaps to fit a bicycle inside. Why inside? Putting ANYTHING on the outside of a vehicle (ICE or EV) greatly increases drag (especially at highway speeds), which would be a double no-no for a high-efficiency EV. Two people with decent cargo space is a good target to aim for. Which means it would be the second vehicle for a family, but could be the only vehicle for pretty much everyone else.

Fortunately, there is an extremely efficient vehicle shape that achieves the goals of optimal aerodynamics for two occupants with room for cargo. It's called the "Morelli Shape", created by Antonio Morelli and his students in the 1970s. This shape is not only extremely aerodynamic, but it is also inherently strong, meaning it doesn't need to be made out of metal to get the needed strength performance, but can instead be made from composites that can be affordably produced in large quantities. Think along the lines of the Tesla Gigapress, but for composites, and you'll get an idea of what can be accomplished.

OK, let's see what we have so far. We have 2 occupants with cargo space. We have a sleek composite body. Next comes the chassis and drivetrain. Being a small and light vehicle, an aluminum chassis can easily provide plenty of strength to carry everything while needing less material than an otherwise equivalent steel vehicle. On a chassis cost basis, it'll be roughly the same strength and cost as a steel chassis, but be significantly lighter and easier to make.

Next comes the drivetrain. Let's assume no new technology. Conventional NMC lithium batteries will be used with silicon carbide (SiC) inverters and permanent magnet motors (PMMs). Nothing new or flashy there. But to maximize usable interior volume, let's move the motors into the wheels. Yes, it will increase the "unsprung weight", but that's pretty much a non-issue in a vehicle that weighs less in the first place and can make use of innovative suspension designs.

Can we reduce weight any further? Yup. Get rid of the fourth wheel. Three wheels can be made just as stable as a four, but it does mean increasing the separation between the wheels, something that actually makes the Morelli Shape perform BETTER! Three tires means 25% lower rolling friction and total wheel weight, an instant drag reduction that is a benefit at all speeds.

All all the above efficiencies together, and you'll find that less power is needed to propel the vehicle. Less total KW needed by the wheels, meaning less to be stored and delivered by the vehicle battery, with NO reduction in overall performance!

Let's get down to numbers: In the above vehicle, a 40 KWh battery can provide 400 miles of range. My 2021 Nissan LEAF has a 40 KWh battery, but gets only 150 miles of range. Yes, the LEAF is a 4-door vehicle, but it has to put its rear seats down to get the cargo volume of the Morelli Shape. The comparison is not unfair!

Morelli Shape made of composites on an aluminum chassis. Three wheels containing the motors. Half the battery capacity means half the battery weight, meaning a further reduction in vehicle weight, and "normal" suspension (compared to today's EVs which weight FAR more than their ICE equivalents, and thus need beefy suspensions).

With this level of efficiency, we're looking at a consumption of only 0.1 KWh/mile. One hundred watt hours. Now, let's say we cover the entire top surface of the vehicle (including the front dash) with solar cells. Using commercially available cells (nothing super-duper), that area could generate 700 watts on a clear and sunny day. Assuming the vehicle is in the sun all day (no garage or shade), that is equivalent to between 30 and 40 miles of range, depending on your latitude.

Finally, we get to the bottom line. The best way to reduce the need for charging is to reduce the need for power! An apartment dweller with such a vehicle may need to charge only once or twice PER MONTH. Right there, the "charging problem" is massively reduced, with no changes to the charging infrastructure.

Does such a vehicle exist? Yes, the final production intent design is being hand-built right now, in parallel with building its factory in Carlsbad, California (near San Diego). FMI: https://Aptera.US

During the early oughts I worked at a small avionics company, and we heavily relied on FAA-certified DERs (Designated Engineering Representatives) to help us ensure we took all the right steps to get our products certified by the FAA, extremely reliable in use, and trusted in the market. The CEO of our company went out of his way to hire "professional assholes" (perfectly nice people paid to be perfectionists) to hold our feet to the fire, to inspect our processes, to inspect the results of using those processes, and to ensure our processes were reliable and repeatable.

Our DERs HAD to be totally independent. Sure, we hired them (for a very pretty penny), but we also worked them hard. And as a small company, we needed our product certifications to go through without any hiccups, as do-overs were expensive and slow. We needed our DERs to give us as much bad news as possible, so the FAA would have no reason to give us any.

Even back then, we were very concerned that Boeing relied on DERs who were company employees, rather than truly independent contractors or consultants. The conflicts of interest were unavoidable, no matter what Boeing claimed, since as employees they'd tend to act in ways that let them keep their jobs!

I've spent hundreds of hours, perhaps a thousand, with certified and independent DERs. They made me a far better engineer, a benefit I've taken with me and used at every job since.

I can't imagine what's in store for Boeing's in-house DERs. They likely were doing their best in a bad situation, though I hope an outside investigation is done to see how they were unable to (or failed to) detect and prevent errors like these.

The difference between remembering a memory and reliving that situation is well known in psychotherapy, and is one of the key aspects of CBT (Cognitive Behavorial Therapy). Quite often, a situation that is objectively not traumatic can be experienced as highly traumatic, having the exact same effect on the person experiencing it as someone experiencing an objectively traumatic event.

An important effect is that reliving lays down ANOTHER memory of having gone through the incident, reinforcing all that came before. This action prevents such reliving from fading with time like normal memories, but instead can become worse over time and the reinforcement grows.

It is good that the difference between reliving and remembering has been observed in brain studies, but that does not inform the relevant treatment.

In my case, I had to learn a few objective things about such experiences:

1. Though they felt like they were occurring again, THEY WERE NOT! The notion of "grounding" was important in separating reliving from reality.

2. The physiological reactions (nightmares, pulse rise, sweating, rapid breathing, adrenaline bursts, etc.) must be nipped in the bud by "talking back to them", by literally saying to oneself that these reactions have NO PLACE in the present.

3. Acceptance. Accept that these things live in the mind, and work is underway to deal with them. This is the opposite of fearing the memory, and is the most important step to erasing its power.

I used to have terrifying nightmares of such experiences. Just weeks into learning CBT I had the tools needed to dissolve them away, clearing the field for the more difficult work that was to follow to learn why my brain did these things to me and to get it to stop doing that kind of stuff. I still remember them all, but I'm no longer reliving them, and I see them for what they actually were back then.

The basic mechanics are sound. The system does have less unsprung weight than wheel motors, and likely weighs less than all other EV drive options. But the devil is in the details.

1. How will the system be sealed from the elements and road dirt? The input shaft likely needs more than a boot around it.

2. How will steering be done? Will the inboard motor also have to pivot with the wheel? Or will a CV joint still be needed?

3. The planetary gears don't have much bite on the outer wheel ring gear. How long will they last? Can they tolerate hard acceleration?

WeWork --> WeWere

Just askin'.

Yeah, the "35,000x" is for Mandelbrot, Mojo vs. "dumb" Python (no Numpy). Once you use Numpy, Mojo is "only" 12x faster, which is still impressive.

Learning to code is a great thing. Having it as a school elective is a great thing. But making coding mandatory is NOT a great thing, and that's Code.Org's goal for education.

As an engineer, I was a huge supporter of Code.Org from the day it started. Then I started volunteering to work with students, to help them learn to code, and saw how programming could create divides and disconnections, rather than bringing students together. Code.Org tends to ignore the students who don't or can't code.

I next went down the "Computational Thinking" rabbit hole, where I thought learning logic fundamentals and algorithmic principles could provide better value than going directly into coding. I was wrong there as well. (Long story removed.)

The students I tutored were often wizards at various games, displaying dizzying real-time analytical skill combined with twitch-fast youthful reflexes. Some were into D'n'D and MTG (my faves). I felt there had to be something there to draw upon.

Then I stepped back and asked a simple question: What life-skills are these students NOT learning from their classes? For example, few knew how to use common hand tools, or had any idea what made a car work. But those are considered "trades", separate from the domain of "primary education" (for better or worse).

The thing I came up with was surprisingly simple: Crafting useful Google searches, then sifting the results to iteratively improve the search. For me, Google is my "exo-brain", the place where I leave the stuff I don't want cluttering up my neurons, but still want nearby. The key, for me, is that I know I can find it quickly and easily, in a ready-to-use form. Almost like restoring my neurons from a backup file.

Search skills. What are they, really? What does it mean to have truly useful search skills?

Think about it for a while. Get philosophical, if that's where your thoughts take you. Look at it from the perspective of a student. From the perspective of an adult.

To me, good search skills are equivalent to developing the ability to self-learn, to ask any question and have the skills needed to ferret out a trustworthy answer. To compare and contrast those answers to separate good from bad. Even if the process leads to a tree of questions that takes time to traverse, the fundamental skills needed remain the same.

Let's teach THAT. Make students better at ASKING QUESTIONS, rather than only having knowledge stuffed into them. Give students GOOD and BAD answers to those questions, then help them discern the differences for themselves.

But it goes deeper. How can students learn to CONTROL or FILTER what they put into their brains? Can they learn self-determination? Introspection? Investigation?

Google searches. Yup.

I have anecdotal evidence (from only a handful of students I've tutored) that this approach both works and adds value. The best part is that it can be taught using little more than the Socratic Method. The teacher doesn't paint the path, but rather helps the student identify and remove obstructions. All forward steps are done by the student, not lead by the teacher.

Coding isn't even present on that scale. Unless your view is restricted to seeing search syntax as a programming language.

Today we have so many AI chatbots that EASILY pass the Turing Test, yet often spew nonsense. We need students who are able to tell truth from deepfakes. Let's help them do that.

The Lockheed L-1011 "TriStar" was the first commercial airliner delivered from the factory with fully autonomous flight capabilities from launch to landing, an astounding achievement pre-GPS, largely enabled by an advanced military-grade inertial navigation system.

FMI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar

Sure, release the data immediately after capture. But give the proposing team the "Right of First Publication" for a period matching the current data exclusive access period.

This will have the beneficial effect of EVERYONE ELSE working independently with the data then trying to become a collaborator on the analysis, to join the publication team. This means better papers will arrive sooner. It also means the team crafting the winning proposals will also be incentivized to collaborate. Some may try to "scoop" the proposal team by dumping their papers on the arXiv, but all will know who the proposing team is, including the publications.

This path has its own problems, but they are administrative rather than scientific.

When my thirst for knowledge let me know it was time for me to let my Navy enlistment expire, I knew I wanted to pursue a degree that combined CS and EE. Which meant I had some stark choices to make concerning the kind of school to attend: Would I go to a "Theory/Research School" or an "Applied/Practice School"? Yes, both emphasize the fundamentals and theory underlying CS, engineering, physics and math principles during the first years, and both provide frequent "reduction to practice" along the way to build basic skills. The difference is in what is studied during the last year of studies: Press on with the theory, or master the increasingly more capable and complex tools and applications needed by industry?

During my search I encountered a pithy observation related by a corporate tech recruiter: "If you need an engineer who will help build your product today to make money the next day, hire from the Applied university. If you need an engineer who will help you find and develop the new technologies needed years down the road, hire from the Theory university."

I chose the theory university, and I only came to understand the deeper underlying differences when I entered industry after graduation. My education with a theory emphasis had empowered me to become a researcher. There was no "class" on becoming a researcher; It was just something we did as we grumbled about the professor forcing us to fill in the gaps in the syllabus for ourselves, or to answer problems not faced by any prior class (and thus lacking directly searchable answers).

This was leveraged and even driven by the necessity for us to work in groups: Mandatory groups in lab classes (due, we were told, to a lack of lab resources), and self-organized groups for all other classes. Those relatively rare and low-unit undergrad lab courses that paralleled key core theory courses essentially drove the rest of our education. Roles within our study groups were informed by how our lab groups were organized, needing individuals to do different things that were then combined to yield a common work product. We each had our individual responsibilities to the group, and the group had the responsibility to ensure we each benefited from the work of all, because there were no group exams.

We never had explicit "classes" on creating, organizing and running effective teams. Just basic guidelines for our "deliverables", namely the group lab reports and the individual homework and exams in the core classes. Nor did we have explicit instruction on becoming researchers, little beyond hints for where to dig.

Here's where I finally get to my view on the paper. My fellow students and I had become, essentially, self-teaching. Our professors and TAs weren't focused so much on the minutia of knowledge as they were on the overall process of seeking, identifying, applying and then extending it. Our professors and TAs had somewhat different roles than those described in the paper. They treated us as collaborators on a common, shared journey. And we treated them as a precious and limited resource to be utilized with care: We literally couldn't afford to waste each other's time.

Homework was rarely graded, instead merely tracked that it had been turned in with "some" work present (no blank pages). Multiple missed assignment was followed up with personal contact to learn why, the time for such contact being made available by the reduced need for grading. All exams were largely multiple choice, with only a few "deep" or "open" questions that would need real effort to grade. The entire process was optimized not to SCORE our performance as students but was instead optimized to provide ACTIONABLE FEEDBACK to both improve our future performance and to help remediate our current shortcomings. Final exams were almost always comprehensive. Doing well there could erase a host of stumbles along the way. Reaching the end-goal together mattered far more than our individual paths to it. In fact, our paths there were highly idiosyncratic: Our differences were encouraged rather than smothered.

This is how researchers work: Failure is part of the process. Rapidly coping with failure is essential, learning from it then trying again on a refined path. Relying upon, even building upon, the strengths of others is the only "shortcut" available. As is allowing for individual "weakness". Diversity of thought shortens the overall path, as false branches are explored, identified and discarded sooner.

My military experience gave me the perspective to see this as it was occurring, to ask about it independent of the class itself, and to steer my own efforts accordingly. My 6-year gap between high school and university made me highly dependent on my younger classmates who had NEVER STOPPED LEARNING! My age often made me the default group leader, a role I often avoided simply because I had many more demands on my time. But it also gave others the chance to shine, with me supporting them only when needed.

My freshman year was a horror for me. Even the "easy" introductory classes were torture for me. I desperately needed my study groups just to keep my head above water. I'd beg for extra meetings to review key problems or issues. (Being the only group member over 21 meant I was not above bribing them with cheap beer to have Friday or weekend meetings.)

I survived my freshman year. At the end of each quarter, while final exams were being graded students were given comprehensive surveys to complete. Part was the university-wide (and anonymous) "CAPE" (Course And Professor Evaluation) survey, and part was a lower-level course/department survey of our individual struggles and successes. The departmental surveys were combined with our grades and analyzed in depth, with interdisciplinary faculty teams targeting both the analysis and the sharing and understanding of the results. Particular attention was paid, for example, to commonalities among struggling students, with the goal of identifying and minimizing them.

Attention was also paid to successful students, in the hope of making their success more widespread among the student population. While I "got by", my lab and study groups scored well overall, with me typically having the lower scores in the group. In the surveys, I and my fellow team members identified "the group" as one of our top keys to success (desperately so for me!).

The survey analysis identified me(!) as a top common factor among students rating their groups highly. I was approached by faculty to be one of the first inductees in a new "student proctor" program, paid employment where I would serve to assist student groups, starting with lab groups. I was beyond flattered but begged off citing my academic load and other employment demands. They refused to accept 'no' for an answer, working with me to address every one of my objections.

I became a proctor. I received two days of basic training on pedagogy and the learning process, then was turned loose on my fellow students. I immediately saw how I was able to off-load some of the demands on the faculty and TAs, which fed a virtuous circle, letting them retarget their time to where it was needed more. Personally, I learned the awesome power of both "peer counselling" and the Socratic Dialog.

I also served as an informal conduit between students and faculty, sharing concerns, making connections, and following up with my fellow students. In return, the TAs and professors treated me as a colleague, albeit as an extremely junior one! One professor made it a point to take me to the Faculty Club every now and then, and urged that undergraduate proctors be given access to the informal sides of the faculty organization, as peers in the process.

I was horrified to learn that, because I was part of the "paid educational staff", my name would be listed in the next PACE survey, as well as in our department/class survey. I would become part of the process the faculty applied to themselves. As the proctor program was new, the students noticed the change, and the program as a whole was rated very well.

I was rated first among my proctor peers. It got worse. I was also ranked in the top 50% of all department faculty and TAs, the only undergrad rated so highly. My "reward" was harsh: In addition to my own proctoring duties, I was also tasked with helping faculty improve the program, and also to help train new proctors. I had been sucked into the system itself, and got to see first-hand how the educational sausage was made. I was studied by the interdisciplinary faculty teams, and was even mentioned (by my initials) in three published papers. I was also asked to assist other veterans on campus (who were, at the time, classified as "reentry" students), which mainly meant I was participating in one more group (I chose to hide my proctor role and avoid a leadership role).

I'm not sharing this to toot my own horn. It is to share how researchers can view themselves as their own research subjects. To set preconceptions and prior processes aside to gain greater overall insights to be fed back into the system.

When looking for a university, be sure to check into how the faculty rates and improves its own processes. Most universities with Psych and Philosophy departments will have such internal programs, though it is being increasingly common for such programs to be legislatively mandated in public universities and colleges.

If you find a theory school with a dynamically self-evolving faculty, grab it by the horns and hold on for the ride!

Which brings me back to the subject paper. It focuses on the daily minutia of instruction, the swarm of mosquitos. The paper does not focus on draining the swamp that breeds them. My own example being to deploy students as effective and inexpensive "mosquito eaters".

Perhaps a key to resolving "the biggest pain points" lies in students' active participation as educators! And as educational researchers, with themselves as their own guinea pigs, working together creatively and collaboratively. Students as faculty. Faculty as students.

Students and faculty are ON THE SAME PATH, merely at different points along that ever-branching route. They should be viewed as a unified hole before breaking the system down into roles of "us vs. them", "teachers vs. students", "paid vs. payor", "service provider vs. customer". Faculty and TAs must teach themselves and each other as well as students.

Students must teach themselves and each other AS WELL AS FACULTY. Actively, not passively.

I was privileged beyond measure to participate at the beginning of one such process. And I'm disappointed that active faculty-student collaboration is not the default today, 40 years later.