3 ms·

I liked the before drawings better, it appears that the kids image of a scientist was replaced by an image if a regular person, that somehow made the drawings m

I liked the before drawings better, it appears that the kids image of a scientist was replaced by an image if a regular person, that somehow made the drawings more boring. Just check the contrast(this is the best artwork IMO): http://ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/nick.html http://ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/nick.html It appears to me that the second one was done with a lot less enthusiasm. edit: The feet are drawn sloppier in the second one, also theres less detail in the face, no background, i think the kid just didn't know how to portrait a scientist anymore, so he did a generic person drawing, and since these are boring, he did a sloppy job at it. My 2c.

whimsy 16y ago
Jesse is a counter-example to this statement (but also, notably, apparently an anomaly.) http://ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/jesse.html http://ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/jesse.html The second picture definitely has a higher awesome-factor than the first.
potatolicious 16y ago
This isn't about liking the drawings - this makes the important distinction to kids that being a scientist doesn't mean complete exclusion from society. If you read the "pre" pictures from a lot of the kids, their perception of scientists was that of the aloof, disconnected, and obsessive. A visit to the lab changed that - and that can only be a good thing. No matter what, kids (nay, all humans) desire to fit in. You cannot successfully ask them to go down a career path if you're going to be a surefire misfit/loser the entire way. The fact that they now perceive scientists as normal people with no-so-normal jobs (to quote from one of the kids) is great, and perceptions like this will serve the scientific community a lot better than that of the obsessive maniac.