The Student Research Challenge Grant Program helps to support faculty who are working on an independent research project. These grants are given to faculty who have been working on a project that will benefit both the institution and the student. The program was established in 2007 and is given to faculty who have been working on projects that have been submitted to the college’s Research and Creative Activity Office (RCA).
This new grant program, which is aimed at undergraduate research, was given to two faculty members last night. The first is currently a senior in his senior year, who is working on developing a theory about the importance of human memory. The second is a junior in his junior year, who is working on developing a theory about the importance of memory in the construction of our mental models. This is a very small program, but it has been very well received by the colleges involved.
I’m not sure I completely understand the first grant. I guess we’re talking about a kind of artificial memory, where the brain makes a model of an object on the basis of something we see, but we don’t need to remember seeing it. The second grant is about the importance of memory, but I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing.
Memory is important. What we remember about a specific object can be very reliable and precise, but it is a very limited resource. You can’t create a memory of a painting that you’ve never seen. What we can remember about a painting might be very different from the original, but the memory itself is still very limited. A painting is not a unique object. You can’t have a memory of every single painting that ever existed.
Memory is important in art but Im not sure what we are talking about. Memory is important (and you are right, it is a limited resource) but when you are talking about grant applications, is something else is important. Grantees need to have a unique project to show that they deserve the grant. Its one thing to say you are a scientist, but if you are not showing that your project makes a point to help people, you are not showing yourself as a scientist.
I don’t know if it is a bad thing or not, but the current art scene has a lot of grant applications that are completely unrelated to art. I think it is because the grant applicants don’t have the ability to show that their project is actually related to art. That is why the art world is a little different from most fields.
This is a great example of the difference between art and science. There is something very important that I need to get across here. I am not saying science should be a thing that everyone does. I think it is a good thing to do, but I think there are a lot of people who aren’t doing science that are doing art.
And I think this is a good example of the difference between science and art. Most of us have seen movies in which a scientist has a special ability that saves him or her from having to do tedious lab research. This is what I mean by art. I don’t think the artists should rely on this sort of thing because it is not really art. That is why I think grants are something that should be given to people who have actual art involved. Science is a lot more subtle about it…
This sort of work is art. But the reality is that most scientists are not artists. And even if they were, there is no guarantee that the reward will be as high as it is in art. For instance, scientists often work in dangerous environments and may not be able to use their abilities in the same way as artists. Scientists are not the best judges of what makes art, or what is art. So they may end up doing art that is not art.
This is true. Scientists often do not have the same kind of creative instincts that artists do. But if they wanted to, they could. For instance, I don’t think that a lot of scientists are artists because they are good at doing science. They might be good at science, but they are not particularly good at art. Just as artists need practice and some skill to be good at art, scientists need practice and skill to be good at science.