Recently in Research Category

I met Dr. Dennis Matthies (*70 *74) at Frist Campus Center for a short drive down Washington Road to Sarnoff's laboratories (the official name of Sarnoff Corporation has been changed to SRI International).  As we entered the building, he told Josh Chen '14 (the other Princetern) and me about the rich history of the laboratories.  Sarnoff was formerly part of RCA Corporation and the location of innovations such as the color television, liquid crystal displays, high-definition television, and many others.

Dr. Dennis Matthies showed me some pieces of Sarnoff's history as RCA Corporation, which included the invention of color television and the design of television's Emmy awards.

We went from the past to the present as we went through an iris scanner that identifies employees as they walk through it and over to Dr. Matthies' office, where he told us about his current responsibilities in the company.  Dr. Matthies is Senior Program Manager of Products and Services for Sarnoff; his job involves coordinating projects with clients and Sarnoff's engineers.  A typical day for him involves responding to issues that appear on email, monitoring project progress, communicating with clients to learn about requirements, and organizing engineers to develop the products and software necessary to meet these requirements.  It is not all sitting at a desk, however; while we there, Dr. Matthies helped an engineer prepare and pack for a trip to California for testing. 

Since 2001, Sarnoff has primarily done contracting for the Department of Defense, making use of their expertise in vision systems to help the military.  Dr. Matthies told us about TerraSight, Sarnoff's software suite that helps the military make use of video information from stationary cameras and Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAVs).  A key component of this is geo-locating the video so that people can determine whether they have seen a certain spot before.  Later, one of Dr. Matthies co-workers, Ric, showed us a computer model similar to Google Earth where they can overlay the live video onto the model to monitor places like airports.

An example of the TerraSight system as it would look in the field.  These boxes can coordinate video from multiple video sources such as UAVs and ground cameras as well as displaying inputs from non video inputs such as radars.  (Photo from Sarnoff's website.)

Before lunch, we met Dalton Pont, who is working to establish Sarnoff as a Center of Excellence in Augmented Reality.  He described applications of virtual reality for training soldiers and first responders, but also for education and even the fashion industry!  As a Center of Excellence, Sarnoff would coordinate with researchers around the country to further the field.  After lunch, we followed Dr. Matthies to two meetings, a light day for him.  Dr. Matthies meets with other managers and engineers to coordinate proposals for the future as well as hear about progress on current projects. 

Dr. Matthies got his undergraduate degree in physics and started working at Sarnoff while he was a graduate student in Device Physics at Princeton.  One of his early projects was a video disc, a precursor to the DVD.  He was soon put in charge of a large aspect of the project, creating the disc, and even got to ride the corporate jet when he flew from RCA to the manufacturing plant!  He worked on a number of projects afterwards, doing research that won him a number of patents.  Dr. Matthies worked on projects with applications in many different fields from large screens for projectors to medicine to the defense projects he works on now.  He strongly believes that his education prepared him to learn about many different projects and become an expert in several different topics.  On the job, Dr. Matthies learned more about how business is run and dealing with many different people as he found projects for his research group.  To him, "work is just the next phase of learning" and he encouraged us to seek out challenging opportunities to learn new things.

The most valuable part of the day for me was hearing about Dr. Matthies' experience and the range of his projects.  From his perspective the world of defense contracting made a lot more sense and I have garnered a much greater appreciation for the work of managers.  I would enthusiastically recommend the Princeternship program to anyone curious about a career path or industry; as Dr. Matthies pointed out, Princeton alumni are very eager to share their expertise and experiences with current students!

Following a very early flight out of Newark and a connection in Charlotte, I finally arrived at UNC Chapel Hill's campus, where I met my host inside a nearby coffee shop. Dr. Rebecca Wells ('88) is an Assistant Professor in Health Policy and Administration at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill's Gilling School of Global Public Health. I shadowed her for the remainder of the day, before my late-night flight back to Newark.

First, I accompanied my host in a departmental meeting, where she met with about 4 colleagues. They were discussing their many research projects, one of which was not doing very well, and some of which were yielding positive results. They brainstormed on how to improve the faltering project. Suggestions touched upon funding, changes in data collection methods, changes in data analysis, etc. Second, I had a bit of free time with which to talk to my host. I briefly visited her office. She showed me some surveys relating to one of her research projects, and answered numerous questions on health policy. Third, I sat in a seminar taught by my host to a group of students enrolled in a doctoral program entitled "Strategic Management in Health Leadership". This was their first lecture of the semester, but I got to sit in and look through her lecture on casual loop diagrams. Apart from my host, I met a few of her colleagues, who are also researchers at the School of Public Health. They were all very receptive and kind, and the work environment seemed collaborative. However, while they work together in developing ideas for their research efforts, they also seem to work in a very individualistic fashion when it comes to completing their part of the project.

I also got to meet my host's students and read about their various academic and career backgrounds. They had worked in a variety of different health initiatives all over the world. They were doctors, directors of community health centers, social workers, directors of global health programs, etc. I was also able to interact with some of them in the classroom setting. Looking back, this might have been the most crucial aspect of my Princeternship, since it allowed me to see the variety of fields and places that these students had been able to cover with their interest in health care.

With that said, I think the Princeternship reinforced my desire to study Public Health, since my host's students showed that an education in the field will likely make me a better physician. Specifically, it has made me realize that I might want to study health systems, which would allow me to look at many different levels and types of health care delivery initiatives all over the world. Hence, this experience was paramount in showing that I want to study Health Policy in a more global framework.

I also learned of obstacles my host had to face in her work, including the financial crisis and the state government.  The closer one comes to seeing the reality of the American health care system, the more appreciative they must become of the people who struggle to work with it.

I would recommend this Princeternship for students who already have a basic understanding of the American health care system, and health policy. Students who have no previous exposure to the field might also benefit, but not to the same extent. This is not to discourage students from being interested. Rebecca Wells was an extremely kind host and a very receptive teacher. I am sure anyone would learn a great deal from her. This was quite a rewarding experience, and I am very grateful.

Day 1: Monday, January 24, 2011
This morning, I drove down streets lined with palm trees as I arrived at the beautiful campus of Stanford University for the Princeternship with Dr. Kiki Chang ('88), a child psychiatrist and clinical researcher.  Dr. Chang is Associate Professor at Stanford University School of Medicine and Director of Pediatric Bipolar Disorders Program. Brian (the other Princetern), Dr. Chang, and I had communicated through email, which allowed us to plan a time to meet and for Dr. Chang to send us background reading.  Dr. Chang is the director of the Pediatric Bipolar Disorders Program at Stanford.  Dr. Chang had even invited us to a lab meeting the week before; unfortunately, neither of us was able to attend.

Dr. Chang was extremely welcoming, enthusiastic about getting to know us, learning about our interests, and sharing his career with us.  When we first arrived, he outlined what he had planned for us to do during our Princeternship.  After we spent some time talking to Dr. Chang in his office, Brian and I were able to watch a subject interview of a teenager with bipolar disorder and an interview of his mother, from behind a one-way mirror.  After the interview, we accompanied several research assistants, who performed an fMRI on the same individual.  Each person that I met today was engaging, explained everything thoroughly, and was eager to answer any of our questions.  I truly enjoyed meeting everybody: the research subject, physicians, students, and research assistants.

At the end of the day, I felt that I had accomplished my two main goals of participating in the Princeternship. (1) I had learned a lot about pediatric psychiatry, a field of study that I was very curious about and not very familiar with.  I am planning to go to medical school and am open to exploring different specialties, therefore was interested in learning more about the field of psychiatry.  (2) I had enjoyed talking to Dr. Chang and his colleagues and was beginning to get a sense of what this type of career path is like.  All this, and, best of all, I could look forward to two more days at Stanford!

Day 2: Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Today, Brian and I arrived at ten o'clock to spend the day with Dr. Chang during his "clinical day."  Every Tuesday, Dr. Chang visits with patients for private consultations.  His first appointment was a meeting with a new patient and Dr. Daniels, a clinical fellow in child psychiatry.  The patient and his mother came to meet with Dr. Chang from a town that is four hours away for a second opinion consultation.  The meeting involved conversations with the child and his mother, both individually and as a family.  Brian and I were able to observe the entire meeting, during which we learned about the patient's medical history and his most recent difficulties.  After this meeting, Dr. Daniels, Brian, and I attended a lunchtime seminar, PSYC 225 (Stanford Klingenstein Fellowship Porgram), designed as a mentoring program that could increase awareness about child and adolescent mental health issues for first and second year medical students.

After class, Brian and I returned to Dr. Chang's office to observe two more visits with patients.  Both were follow-up meetings, one with a thirteen-year old patient and the other with a five-year-old patient.  They had previously met with Dr. Chang to consider the possibility of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.  In one case, the child was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, as well as other comorbid conditions, for which their treatment was working. In the other case, the patient was diagnosed with a disorder other than bipolar disorder and was referred to a specialist of that disorder.  Being able to observe the clinical consultations was one of my favorite parts of the experience.  It gave me a favorable impression of what it could be like to practice psychiatry.  I also valued being able to see what types of issues with which a pediatric psychiatrist helps children and their families.

Day 3: Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Today, Brian and I observed facets of administration, planning, and organizing that are required during clinical research.  In the morning, we joined Dr. Chang and his colleagues for a meeting in his office about how they would complete a research project that involved follow-up fMRI's of bipolar and control subjects.  They decided how many subjects and which tasks the subjects would perform during the follow-up.  Afterwards, Brian and I had a chance to talk to Dr. Chang more in-depth about his career, how much he enjoys it, how he chose it, as well as reminisce about Princeton (what has and has not changed since he was a student).

After Brian and I ate lunch together, we attended a lab meeting with Dr. Chang, his colleagues, and his research assistants.  During the lab meeting, everybody shared updates about their research, planned which information would be presented during an upcoming conference, and selected an article from a recent journal that focused on pediatric bipolar disorder to present to the group at the next lab meeting.  After lab meeting, Dr. Amy Garrett gave us a very thorough explanation of one of the studies that she planned to present at the upcoming conference.  She is particularly interested in the role of the amygdala, which is involved in emotion regulation and memory, in the development of bipolar disorder.  Layla, one of Dr. Chang's research assistants, was kind enough to spend time showing us how the images from MRI are processed, using "skull stripping" software.  Ryan, another research assistant, taught us how the data is processed using statistical analysis.

At the end of the Princeternship, I felt very grateful.  I had learned about the life of an academic pediatric psychiatrist, the content of Dr. Chang's research, and the administrative skills required to conduct so much research.  Each person I met was generous with their time, willing to show Brian and me around, and to discuss their work.  I enjoyed meeting so many people, learning new things, and getting a taste of life after Princeton.  I am thrilled to have had such a wonderful experience.

Wednesday, January 26th: Day One
After trudging through the fresh snow, I arrived (punctually I might add) at the office of Professor James Fleming ('88) circa 8:30 AM. A second Princetern was expected, and Professor Fleming and I killed some time discussing my interest in law and Professor Robert George at Princeton. Fleming had collaborated on the textbook currently used by Professor George in his infamous Constitutional Interpretation course, which I've just survived, and it gave us some common ground.

Once the second Princeton student arrived, Professor Fleming told us a bit about his background, and inquired more specifically into our interests. Each of us was given an academic paper to edit, on a subject relevant to our stated interests. They were rather long, and provided us with work until lunch.

Lunch was rather epic. This was partially because the faculty lounge was full of important looking books and leather armchairs, and partially because we met two other members of the faculty, a couple introduced only as Bob and Anne, who regaled us with tales of their work aiding new governments with writing laws in Africa. Professor Fleming comes to work in jeans and changes into a suit before lecture, so we were kicked out of the office for a bit while he changed.

From 2:00 to 4:00 PM we sat in on Professor Fleming's Constitutional Law lecture. The topic was voting rights, and, since I'm a Floridian, Professor Fleming made sure to take a jab at my expense when we reached Bush v. Gore. The lecture was easy to follow, and seeing that there is not some magical difference between a law school course and an undergraduate course was rather reassuring.

After the lecture, Professor Fleming arranged a meeting for us with a new addition to the BU faculty, Khiara Bridges. Her paper on the undue burden standard was to be the subject of a faculty workshop, and it was great to have an opportunity to get to know her and her work before attending her presentation.
 
Thursday, January 27th: Day Two
There was a blizzard. Consequently, the Law School was closed until 11 AM and we got off to a bit of a late start. Upon our arrival, we were immediately whisked away to a meeting with the Dean. It was interesting to shadow Fleming in his capacity as Associate Dean, especially because it provided a really in-depth behind-the-scenes look at what goes in to running a law school. I was pleasantly surprised by Dean Maureen O'Rourke's candor. The meeting revolved around improving the faculty workshops. Our presence did change things a bit, in the sense that Professor Fleming and Dean O'Rourke used mutually understood generalities to avoid specifics.

We then sat in on a meeting between Professor Fleming and one of his students, who was proposing a seminar paper topic. A similar meeting occurred on Wednesday, and both times I felt that concrete advice was given, and the student walked out with a strong sense of direction. Once more we were kicked out so that Professor Fleming could change, but not before I noticed that the reason he was able to locate sources for his students so rapidly was a painstakingly alphabetized library.

Having the opportunity to sit in on Professor Bridge's faculty workshop was incredible not just because this was her first time presenting completely new research, but also because it's an experience that is generally closed to students. It felt like witnessing a thesis defense, and it was comforting to know that teachers are subjected to the same scrutiny that they subject us to on a regular basis.

Once again, from 2:00- 4:00 PM, we sat in on a lecture. This time it was a seminar on Constitutional Theory. Once again, I found it interesting (although that might have been because I'd already read the material up for discussion in Professor George's class at Princeton).

After lecture we joined Professor Fleming for dinner in his home, which by the way, is really nice. His wife, Linda McClain, is also a member of the BU faculty, and it was great to be able to get her perspective and career-advice as well.

Overall, the experience solidified my intention to go to law school. Seeing the way a law school is run from the perspective of students, teachers, and administrators, really assuaged all of the concerns I'd harbored about it being an intimidating place. There was a sense of warmth in the faculty's interactions with each other, and with the students, that made it clear that, in spite of occasionally biting criticisms, everyone was pushing each other to improve and succeed. Without hesitation, I would recommend the Princeternship program to other students interesting in learning more about their intended field.

The day started out drearily. There was a new, fresh layer of snow on the ground. It was over a foot high. It never occurred to me that the Princeternship might be canceled, however, so I trekked over to Nassau Street. When I arrived in front of 32 Nassau, the doors were locked. I called Su, and it turns out they had actually decided to cancel today. But as I turned around, Regina and Jen asked me, "Are you Rena? Come up and have a bagel." And I'm glad I did, as the Princeternship commenced anyway despite the snow.

First, I shadowed Su Wang ('09), who taught me a little bit about her work with the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and how APPRISE is responsible for helping programs such as those see if they are effective, from start to finish. The day was spent seeing just exactly what that meant. After that, I shadowed Regina Yang ('08), who told me all about her work with the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation and how, although many programs are beneficial to companies, they might still not opt to participate because of the little details and requirements involved.

Next was Jen. Through shadowing her, I learned how programs actually measure, tangibly, how effectively they are running. Jen's project was on measuring indoor air quality, which involved interviewing program participants and arranging pickups for and collecting data from their monitors on a strict calendar timeline a certain number of days after weatherization. I was allowed to listen in on a conference call observing an interview with a program participant. The surveyor had to be very careful not to ask leading questions, or seem rude in any way. This was especially important in screening calls with Parfait, the person I shadowed next after a delicious lunch at Winberies with Su and Regina. If a surveyor asked leading questions, or recorded incorrect data, it could jeopardize the integrity of the study. After screening a few phone interview recordings myself, checking for consistency and following the skipping patterns of the survey, I shadowed Brian and Ray last, who showed me how even smaller details of computer coding, how questions were asked, and especially grammar were very important in the surveys.

Lastly, Su, Regina, and I debriefed with Dr. Jackie Berger (*96), the director in charge, on what I learned today, and to address any questions I had. Jackie told me that sometimes people actually go out into the field and collect data themselves--something Jen had mentioned she really wanted to do if she gets the chance. After the meeting, I gave and received warm goodbyes to everyone, and thanked them for their time and patience.

All in all, this Princeternship has been very enlightening and gave me much insight into how a public research company, such as APPRISE, allows big government programs to measure their efficacy.

My day began early, and especially cold. For a Californian like me, who had stepped outside only minimally since the snow had begun falling, I knew that the day would already be an adventure. Fortunately, Sarnoff's campus was just down the road from Princeton, and alumnus Dr. Matthies (*70 *74) kindly drove Anna (the other Princetern) and I the few minutes to his office.

As we walked into the company's lobby, Dr. Dennis Matthies pointed out many interesting tidbits about Sarnoff's history. The building had once served as one of RCA's main research labs, and was adorned with plaques from the IEEE commemorating RCA's invention of the color television and the liquid crystal display. Now, most of Sarnoff had moved onto the R&D of technologies like iris recognition, video software for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and augmented reality - the cutting-edge military technologies of today. In fact, as we walked out of the lobby, we passed through one of Sarnoff's prototype iris recognition cameras. It was incredibly exciting just walking through the hallways of the buildings where the some of the famed private industry research of the post-war era was conducted.

Dr. Matthies then took us to his office, where he discussed his present work. Dr. Matthies is the Senior Program Manager in the Products and Services business group at Sarnoff, which means that he works to understand Sarnoff's clients needs (mostly the DoD) and translate this understanding into projects for Sarnoff's engineers. It was interesting to learn that he did little design work as a manager - instead, he focused on defining projects, their requirements, his engineers' duties, and so on. In particular, he was focused on managing work on TerraSight, a software suite that integrated the analysis of video from each of the Army, Navy, and Air Force's UAVs into one simplified screen. It's a lot more complicated (complete with some things we can't even discuss here!), but it was incredibly interesting to see how TerraSight seemed to relate to many technologies that I was more familiar with. For example, TerraSight geo-locates video by matching features of the images to an existing satellite map of the region. It was a bit like Google Earth, albeit in a more military context.

Dr. Matthies also introduced us to other managers of his company during the day. From Dalton, one of his co-workers, we learned about Sarnoff's efforts to establish a Center of Excellence in augmented reality (AR) between the company and Princeton. Sarnoff would then become the premier research facility for AR in the country. Dalton showed us some videos of the prototypes they'd already developed for AR, all of which was very exciting. Around lunch, we also met the CEO of the company!

In the afternoon, Dr. Matthies invited us to observe two of his meetings. He had actually shrunk down his schedule for the day - but we could tell that there still was a lot that needed to be done. We watched as he discussed, asked questions, and clarified duties with other managers and computer scientists. Later in the day, we also followed Dr. Matthies as he made sure all was ready for an employee who had to go to a California military base to test a prototype of Sarnoff's products. In all, Dr. Matthies had a busy schedule of ensuring that the development work for his various projects progressed smoothly and on schedule.

Near the end of the day, Dr. Matthies took some time to discuss with us his work over the years. The Sarnoff building actually started as part of RCA Laboratories, and was later transitioned to a consulting company under parent company owner SRI. I was fascinated to learn how he began working at RCA Laboratories part-time while a graduate student at Princeton, how he researched all sorts of technologies while there, and how he was awarded his first patents. The nature of the work changed over time due to the transition to the consulting business (less basic research, like other American engineering companies in general). The new culture was more focused on development and solving important problems, and there was an increased focus on winning military contracts to conduct research. This was exceptionally different from the entrepreneur-driven, consumer-products-drive culture of Silicon Valley that I was more familiar with. Yet it was intriguing that many of the technologies I knew of, like the television and LCD displays, came from work done in this building and its different style of R&D.

Dr. Matthies also gave us some advice on education and choosing a career in general. It was interesting hearing his point of view that we should experiment more with our interests as undergraduates, since graduate school and our careers will try to teach us to be the world expert in a narrow topic. He also gave us some tips for choosing a career: Pick a company that will give you the freedom to pursue your interests, so that you will always be learning. It was easy to tell that Sarnoff offered him just that. Even just this opportunity of chatting with Dr. Matthies for an afternoon was as valuable as learning about the field in which he worked.

All in all, this opportunity was incredible. I learned a phenomenal amount, and was fascinated by how the nature of the engineering in industry has evolved over the time that Dr. Matthies has worked at Sarnoff. I feel that such an experience is definitely unique to this Princeternship program - I could not have possibly learned what I had learned in the classroom, especially as a freshman saddled with core course requirements.

I'm incredibly thankful to have had this opportunity, and I would definitely recommend any student - especially freshmen - to apply for this program. It's not only a great way to explore your career interests, but also to simply hear valuable insights from an alum for a day!

The week before my Princeternship with Professor James Fleming ('88), I read selections from the book he co-authored with Sotirios Barber (another leading scholar of constitutional law) entitled, Constitutional Interpretation: The Basic Questions. This served as an extremely effective introduction to constitutional interpretation and helped prepare me to ask Professor Fleming about the substantive issues of his profession.

I met Professor Fleming early Monday morning at Boston University. I sat in on a meeting he conducted with the editors of the BU Law Review--they discussed, among other things, the possibility of including a guest lecturer's remarks in the fall issue. We then attended a lecture by former Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak, who had been occupying an office near Professor Fleming for the week. As I learned from Professor Fleming and one of his colleagues, Pnina Lahav, Justice Barak wrote a hugely instrumental multi-volume guide to the interpretation of the Israeli constitution, and is venerated as one of the most important figures in contemporary jurisprudence. He lectured on the practice of proportionality by European courts--which, I learned, is the system by which European justices generally determine the constitutionality of a given statute, more or less in contrast with the American system, in which justices automatically apply varying levels of scrutiny depending on the perceived importance of the right(s) being limited by the statute in question. Following the lecture--and after Professor Fleming introduced me to Chief Justice Barak--I had the opportunity to discuss proportionality and levels of scrutiny with Professor Fleming at length.

Next, I attended Professor Fleming's class on Constitutional Law. He discussed several seminal cases with which the Supreme Court has grappled in the last century--among them Gobitis and Barnette, addressing whether the pledge of allegiance can be compulsory; United States vs. O'Brien, dealing with free speech and draft-card burning; and another incendiary case, Texas vs. Johnson, upholding an individual's right to exercise free speech in burning the American flag. I got to observe firsthand the format and subject matter of a typical law class--both from a student's and teacher's perspective.

At the close of Monday afternoon, Professor Fleming introduced me to several of his colleagues at a faculty meeting. I spoke with two professors at length-- Ward Farnsworth, who recently authored Classical English Rhetoric, and Andrew Kull, who maintains a strong interest in Classics aside from his legal work. Both advised me as to several ways in which I could integrate Classics and law--by writing a thesis at Princeton that dealt with some aspect of Classical law, by pursuing a Classics graduate and Ph.D. track before going into law, by keeping my eye out for special fellowships that would encourage independent work of such kind. But most importantly, they advised me to take a year off after graduating from Princeton before applying to law school. A gap year, they argued, would help me see if law was really a discipline to which I wanted to commit. I plan on taking their advice.

On Tuesday, I talked with Professor Fleming about several of the big issues he has grappled with in recent books--among them, the tension between civil rights and responsibilities, which he and Professor Linda C. McClain address in Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues, forthcoming from Harvard University Press. We discussed the process of writing and/or co-authoring a book and editing or reviewing another scholar's manuscript for publication.

Overall, the Princeternship was a wonderful experience! As many of the professors whom I met reminded me, it's a bit too early for me to begin thinking about a legal career, especially as a law professor--which I learned requires not only a tremendous amount of preliminary work but also a lot of luck--but I learned how I might go about integrating my interests in Classics and law, getting more involved in the legal world at Princeton (that's right--though we don't have a law school, there's the Law and Public Affairs [LAPA] program), and keeping an eye out for alternatives to law school that would give me more freedom (and money) to follow what I love. Best yet, the experience introduced me to substantive questions of constitutional law, as well as to the big names behind the leading theories floating around in the contemporary literature. I'm finishing Professor Fleming's book in eager anticipation of Robert George's Constitutional Interpretation class next fall!