1 . Online classes began to be popularized just a few decades ago. They are advertised as a way for adults to finish their education and students to learn the material at their own pace—it is far more suitable for people with busy schedules.

But after being enrolled in an online course last fall semester, I came to realize online classes were merely a means to fulfil course requirements.

First of all, students lack the desire to learn, and they simply complete their assignments to receive credit for a passing grade rather than genuinely engage with the course material.

As online courses tend to have more than 100 students, most of the assignments are short and simple. They are not designed for students to interact with the material in depth but designed to be graded casily to accommodate such a large number of students.

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage of taking an online class is the absence of face-to-face interaction between the teacher and their students. Live sessions are infrequent and are often scheduled during the middle of the day when students have to attend other classes or work. The office hours of the professor may also be during inconvenient times for many students as well. Most interaction with the professor has to be through email which is often impersonal. It is nearly impossible for students to build a relationship with their professor.

There is also little interaction amongst students. It can be harder for students to create study groups and form relationships with their peers.

Online classes also require either a computer or laptop and a reliable internet connection. Not all students have access to these types of resources, whether it is for financial or other reasons, and some students can be put at a disadvantage.

Offering online classes certainly helps students who would otherwise not be able to attend classroom sessions. However, they fail to provide a genuine education with an emphasis on convenience rather than critical thinking. We need restructured online classes in which students can have a learning experience that will actually provide quality education.

2 . A new study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family claims that all that time you spend parenting just doesn’t matter. But it’s a claim that, despite the enthusiastic and widespread coverage by the media, does not hold water.

The research suggests that child outcomes (including behavior problems, emotional problems, and academic performance) are barely connected with the time that parents spend with their children. The researchers examined the time diaries of 1,600 children, looking at parenting time and outcomes when the kids were aged 3 to 11 in 1997, and again in 2002, when they were between 8 and 16. (A time diary is a detailed report of all activities you carry out in a day. )

This research largely reflects the failure of the authors to correctly measure parental input. It just looked at time diaries from two particular days-one a weekday and the other a weekend day.

Trying to get a sense of the time you spend parenting from a single day’s diary is a bit like trying to measure your income from a single day. If yesterday was payday, you looked rich, but if it’s not, you would be reported as poor. You get a clearer picture only by looking at your income — or your parenting time—over a more meaningful period.

What you did yesterday should not be taken as representative of what you did last year, This is why most high-quality studies of parenting time focus instead on how often parents read to their children, play with them or help their with homework over a period of a month or longer — long enough to represent their different approaches to parenting.

As an exhausted parent who doesn’t get enough time to work out, and who hasn’t seen a movie for months, I understand why so many of us might seize on studies suggesting that we should take more time for ourselves. Perhaps we should. But I agree with Ariel Kalil, a developmental psychologist, on the suggestion “that when parents spend high-quality time with their children, their children are more likely to succeed.”

3 . “One of the reasons I find this topic very interesting is because my mom was a smoker when I was younger.” says Lindson-Hawley, who studies tobacco and health at the University of Oxford.

By studying about 700 adult smokers, she found out that her mom quit the right way—by stopping abruptly and completely.

In her study, participants were randomly assigned to two groups. One had to quit abruptly on a given day, going from about a pack a day to zero. The other cut down gradually over the course of two weeks. People in both groups used nicotine(尼古丁) patches before they quit, in addition to a second form of nicotine replacement, like gum or spray. They also had talk therapy with a nurse before and after quit day.

Six months out, more people who had quit abruptly had stuck with it—more than one-fifth of them, compared to about one-seventh in the other group. Although these numbers appear low, it is much higher than if people try without support.

And the quit rates were particularly convincing given that before the study started, most of the people had said they’d rather cut down gradually before quitting. “If you’re training for a marathon, you wouldn’t expect to turn up and just be able to run it. And I think people see that for smoking as well. They think, “Well, if I gradually reduce, it’s like practice.” “says Lindson-Hawley. But that wasn’t the case. Instead of giving people practice, the gradual reduction likely gave them cravings(瘾) and withdrawal symptoms before they even reached quit day, which could be why fewer people in that group actually made it to that point. “Regardless of your stated preference, if you’re ready to quit, quitting abruptly is more effective.” says Dr. Gabriela Ferreira.“When you can quote a specific number like a fifth of the patients were able to quit, that’s convincing. It gives them the encouragement, I think, to really go for it.”Ferreira says.

People rarely manage to quit the first time they try. But at least, she says, they can maximize the odds of success.

6 . No business would welcome being compared to gambling. Yet that is what is happening to makers of video games. For years parents have complained that their children are “addicted” to their video games and smartphones. Today, however, even more doctors are using the term. On January 1 this year, “gaming disorder” — in which games are played uncontrollably, despite causing harm — gained recognition from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Are games really addictive? Psychologists have different opinions. Those who don’t think so say that this is just another moral panic. Similar warnings have been given about television, rock’n’roll, jazz, comic books, novels and even crossword puzzles, but it turns out that they are not as harmful as expected.

However, supporters argue that game developers have the motivation and the means to design their products to make them extremely attractive. For one thing, the business- model has changed: In the old days, games were bought once and for all. But these days, games are free and money is earned from purchases of in-game goods, which ties playtime directly to revenue (收益). For another, game-makers combine psychological theory and data, which helps them maximize the playtime. Smartphones and modern video game machines use their permanent Internet connections to send gameplay data back to developers. In this way products are constantly adjusted to encourage players’ spending. The biggest spenders are known as “whales”, a term that originated in casinos (赌场).

The gaming industry should realize that, in the real world, it has a problem, and that problem is growing. Now that gaming addiction comes with an official WHO recognition, diagnoses will become more common. Anyway, being put together with gambling in the public mind, fairly or not, will not do the industry any good.

10 . The curb cut (下斜路缘). It’s a convenience that most of us rarely, if ever, notice. Yet, without it, daily life might be a lot harder—in more ways than one. Pushing a baby stroller onto the curb, skateboarding onto a sidewalk or taking a full grocery cart from the sidewalk to your car—all these tasks are easier because of the curb cut.

But it was created with a different purpose in mind.

It’s hard to imagine today, but back in the 1970s, most sidewalks in the United States ended with a sharp drop-off. That was a big deal for people in wheelchairs because there were no ramps (斜坡) to help them move along city blocks without assistance. According to one disability rights leader, a six-inch curb “might as well have been Mount Everest”. So, activists from Berkeley, California, who also needed wheelchairs, organized a campaign to create tiny ramps at intersections to help people dependent on wheels move up and down curbs independently.

I think about the “curb cut effect” a lot when working on issues around health equity (公平). The first time I even heard about the curb cut was in a 2017 Stanford Social Innovation Review piece by PolicyLink CEO Angela Blackwell. Blackwell rightly noted that many people see equity as “a zero-sum game (零和游戏)” and that it’s commonly believed there is a “prejudiced societal suspicion that intentionally supporting one group hurts another.” What the curb cut effect shows though, Blackwell said, is that “when society creates the circumstances that allow those who have been left behind to participate and contribute fully, everyone wins.”

There are multiple examples of this principle at work. For example, investing in policies that create more living-wage jobs or increase the availability of affordable housing certainly benefits people in communities that have limited options. But, the action also empowers those people with opportunities for better health and the means to become contributing members of society—and that benefits everyone. Even the football huddle (密商) was initially created to help deaf football players at Gallaudet College keep their game plans secret from opponents who could have read their sign language. Today, it’s used by every team to prevent the opponent from learning about game-winning strategies.

So, next time you cross the street, or roll your suitcase through a crosswalk or ride your bike directly onto a sidewalk—think about how much the curb cut, that change in design that broke down walls of exclusion for one group of people at a disadvantage, has helped not just that group, but all of us.