Sun, 05 Jan 2020 Feature Article

The America That Is Not For Me: Part 37

The America That Is Not For Me: Part 37

My second OB class went relatively well in spite of serious yet occasional hiccups in exercising the full capacity of my recall memory. This is understandable given the state of my mental health and the almost one-year interregnum of intellectual idleness I found myself in following the unexpected break in the unfolding continuum of my studies―clinical and didactic.

On the contrary, though this break may have seemed an unforeseen financial and psycho-emotional drain on my eudemonic wellbeing in the short term, the break did in fact come with its own fortuitous compass of accrued benefits that, in my reckoning, did not immediately fall within the encircling purview of my considered possibilities of life choices, as it were―falling far beyond the objectively quantifiable immediacy of my mental geography in a special context where I had otherwise remained anticipant of victory in the endarkened theater of untangling life’s challenges and complexities.

The new OB class got me out of the enceinte of this existential theatre of comedy horror that is also the Frankenstein physiognomy of life, perhaps an unshared view antithetical to the moral quintessence of divine comedy. Yet in the midst of crippling despair can be found a cornucopia of laughter, the drive for self-preservation, the propensity for camaraderie and philanthropy, and the desire to impact the world in positive ways, thus, if I may add, entrenching one’s legacy in the universal consciousness of man, a mere ephemeron. And this, fortunately for me, is the kind of positive cast of mind that has sustained me as I meander through the frigid multicursal pathways of life.

My renewed interest in this new OB class exposed me to a constellation of character types that shared in the fullness of the social topology of complementarity, particularly of the kind that underwrote the pragmatic signature of my holistic personality. There in this class, as in the previous class, I found myself in the same clinical group with the champagne dancer and choreographer Eishita Nariani, the shy-looking and unassuming and positivist Daisy Cardenas, the soft-spoken and frolicsome Lauryn Dikeou, the movie aficionado and my lovely aunt’s namesake Victoria Queen, and Tsvetelina Stanchev, an interesting and gregarious lady with a perfect model physique.

Victoria’s surname also reminded me of Queen Latifah, the matriarch of rap music, as well as of her maiden album All Hail the Queen; of British rock band Queen, widely known for the popular song “Bohemian Rhapsody,” a biopic film of the same name; of Billy Ocean’s international hit song “Caribbean Queen”; of ABBA’s “Dancing Queen”; and finally, of the sitcom The King of Queens.

These ladies who take life seriously are also beautiful, intelligent, industrious, respectful, affable, and given to creative jocularity. The professional and pally closeness we shared as a group reaffirmed my feminist inclinations as a heterosexual male. Here, unlike the constitution of my previous group in which two of us, all male, competed for the deepest affection for intellectual exchanges with our female counterparts, I enjoyed the full attention span of Victoria, Lina, Daisy, Lauryn, and Eishita. They cracked healthy jokes about their boyfriends, an indication that we have a life to live beyond the stressful and anxiety headaches of nursing education, while I sat attentively rapt in and glued to the emotional curvature of their disarming jocundity, eventually leaving me to fend for my newfound matriarchal or female-led territoriality.

In fact, any creeping sense of social or professional ennui on my part quickly dissipated as I grew emotionally with the wonderful members of this group. For instance, a fleeting snakelike dance move Eishita made in the control room of Sim, perhaps whether unconsciously or absentmindedly, to no audible background music in particular mounted a wafture of gleeful chuckle on my jaded face. Eishita and I continued our professional friendship with texts-based conversational excursions into topical matters of special interest to India/Asia and Ghana/Africa. Some of these topics were substantively intellectual―painstakingly structured and fitted around a narrative edifice of shared interests. We discussed Indian classical music, Hinduism, choreography, the musicality of Ravi Shankar and his family, jazz, the Ladakh Range and Kashmir, the Indian sitar, a visit of a maternal uncle of mine who led a delegation of Ghanaian educators (from Ghana’s Ministry of Education) to India, etc.

From my personal angle, though, Eishita came across as the most outspoken, cheeriest, and peppiest of all the girls.

What is more, they brought a wealth of experience, wisdom, and knowledge to the table of teamwork and collaborative communication in our shared closed universe of clinical socialization, an essential ingredient in the recipe of clinical effectuation of theoretical, didactic intellection. Overall, they also added a savory condiment of humanity to group interactions, behavior, and communication. Of course the cheek-dimpled Lauryn and the live-wire Eishita led the way. It was as if I was in the company of Spice Girls and Fifth Harmony. Potentially, I was off to a good start in an effeminate context of group socialization. Eventually the square language of group socialization assumed a choral character born of a strong singsong personality―of course a signal happening conducive to the operationalization of the diacritic powers of the mind in the art of colloquialism.

But on the other hand, the nature of my special interest in Lauryn harked back to a special relationship I had developed with my academic advisor when I pursued graduate studies in engineering at Northeastern University. Both Lauryn and my former graduate academic advisor are Greeks. He and I occasionally discussed the works of ancient Greek philosophers, writers, poets, and mathematicians beyond the neoteric universe of engineering mathematics and sociology of engineering and how their largely derived knowledge primarily arose from the fructiferous headship of Africa’s classical antiquity. Not many people are cognizant of this special relationship between ancient Greece and ancient Africa, but admittedly because of the insidious infectivity of political and ideological warpage in the professionalization of academic research in and teaching of the humanities in the West, further obfuscation of the true facts of classical scholarship has inflicted serious damage on the sociology of international and human relations.

Thus, I clearly saw a line in space connecting Lauryn and my former graduate academic advisor in the thoracic domain of cultural and epistemic consanguinity. In another sense, Eishita’s academic background in psychology and Victoria’s in social work added another rung of heightened instrumentality to the evolving ladder of group intellectual socialization, resulting in the life-affirming ingeneration of characterological synchrony against the potential threat of group fragmentation along the fault lines of ideological idiosyncrasies, of personality clashes, as well as of starchy loyalty to the magisterial authoritarianism of the individual self. If structural cohesion in our group could therefore congeal the mental and characterological aggregation of members into a graspable bind of time and space, an approach to group dynamics that saw us through the transilient labyrinth of productive ends, then so much the better. And it worked well for us!

This was not about Celine Dion’s and Peabo Bryson’s classic duet “Beauty and the Beast,” a beautiful song that appeared on a soundtrack for a film of the same name, but rather about the empowering interactive dynamics of “Beauty and Brains.”

More fundamentally, group academic discourse socialization entailed this interesting variegation of academically gifted ladies who want to make an impact on this world.

I also, besides members of my immediate group, assiduously worked throughout the semester with the demure Mariame Fontana, an Ivoirian, and the convivial and happy-go-lucky Jeniva Mashitaki, a Tanzanian, both very beautiful, hardworking, intelligent, and ambitious. They constituted my main support and source of intestinal fortitude as I bulldozed my way through the semester.

Thus, male chauvinists and patriarchs who tendentiously preach the gospel of women’s intellectual or mental inferiority to assuage their outsized egos, scientific backwardness, and insecurities do a great disservice to the collective will of humanity to effectively mobilize social, moral, and political forces for the activation and actualization of gender equality, of women’s total emancipation.

Yet day in and day out, I come across convincing data that fully support the absolute defenestration of the statistical perversion of women insofar as their unbridled capacity for intellection and their many positive contributions to human civilization and development since the dawn of time. As Mr. Barack Obama put it so eloquently in Glamour:

"In my lifetime we’ve gone from a job market that basically confined women to a handful of often poorly paid positions to a moment when women not only make up roughly half the workforce but are leading in every sector, from sports to space, from Hollywood to the Supreme Court. I’ve witnessed how women have won the freedom to make your own choices about how you’ll live your lives—about your bodies, your educations, your careers, your finances. Gone are the days when you needed a husband to get a credit card. In fact, more women than ever, married or single, are financially independent…

"We need to keep changing the attitude that teaches men to feel threatened by the presence and success of women…

"We need to keep changing the attitude that values being confident, competitive, and ambitious in the workplace—unless you’re a woman. Then you’re being too bossy, and suddenly the very qualities you thought were necessary for success end up holding you back…"

Mr. Obama correctly notes elsewhere (Duster & Zeleny, 2019): “Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you're better than us (men)...I'm absolutely confident that for two years, if every nation on Earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything…living standards and outcomes.” The myth of women’s inferiority should therefore have no place in the ongoing evolutionary maturation of and socialization between the dominant sexes, for, for instance, I have not found gathered in one unique place an intellectually, professionally and scientifically competent body of thinkers and professors and clinicians as the predominantly female faculty in the Nursing Department of Anschutz Medical Campus.

The collective mind of this impressive faculty will put Larry Summers, ex-president of Harvard University, and others like him―from the Rush Limbaughs to the Bill O’Reillys―to shame (Jaschik, 2005). Indeed, some critics (Spelke, 2005) have taken strong exception to the notion of “intrinsic aptitude” as constituting the major theoretical backbone that is only answerable to the differential representation of the major sexes, male versus female, in the fields of science and mathematics, putatively a problem born of cognitive sex differences. On the other hand, the role of culture and environment as indispensable contributory factors to this skewed factor of differential representation in favor of men are sometimes conveniently glossed over or suppressed for obvious reasons.

Dr. Jennifer Dailey-Vail and Dr. Lori Trego, the latter of whom the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) selected as its 2018-2019 Distinguished Nurse Scholar-in-Residence, embody the unmistakable fount of clinical competency, professional adaptability, and theoretical authority in the field of nursing pedagogy and clinical education. Both are also great role models for students from all walks of life. These qualities further enrich the instructional enterprise of faculty sensitization to the phenomenology of pedagogical pragmatism. More important, both students and the professoriate are the direct beneficiaries of this proliferous instructional enterprise of knowledge production, transfer, and acquisition. This is where Dr. Dailey-Vail and Dr. Trego, co-teachers of my OB class, come in. In her acceptance speech, Dr. Trego had this to say (Eisenberg, 2018):

"I am honored to be selected for this extraordinary opportunity to represent the American Academy of Nursing, the American Nurses Association, and the American Nurses Foundation, and to provide a nursing perspective during the formation of health policy…My intention while at NAM is to champion efforts to improve the health and care of active military and Veteran women through evidence-based policies and informed policy decision-making."

This thoughtful capsule statement invigoratingly sums up the bold vision of Dr. Trego to use her broad-based knowledge, her critical mental faculties, her evidence-based nursing practice, and her expertise to improve outcomes for enceinte women across the US. And although the afore-cited statement may not have overtly or fully articulated all her noble intentions, given that the US leads the rest of the world in scientific research, and yet again given that the US is a global leader in technology, whatever contributions she made to the formulation of progressive health policies at the national level in behalf of US-based women could have a ripple effect on the health of women from around the world.

This is primarily so because apart from the direct cultural, moral, economic, political, and environment-specific implications of her academic and scientific work for women’s health in the US, the behavioral functionality or utility of the anatomy and physiology of the female reproductive system is the same everywhere regardless of the unique geopolitical identity of a national or statist topology―clearly defined outside the geopolitical demarcation of the national politics of the US.

Added to this is the fact that Anschutz Medical Campus (AMC) is a true national leader in the professionalization of nursing pedagogy and clinical education, a fact that may have boosted nurse scientist Dr. Trego’s credentials and made her more attractive to the aforementioned national organizations. The quality, wide-ranging auctorial interests, and philosophic-scientific scope of her corpus of peer-reviewed publications (University of Colorado, 2019a) may have all contributed to her national respectability and credibility as a formidable nurse scientist.

I have critically read some of the scholarly articles she has co-written with her colleagues and found them to be of the highest quality from the points of view of the methodologies used and the wide-ranging scope of philosophical aims and intents that make up the structural character of these select publications, as measured by the standards of rationalist investment in the kind of difficult scientific questions these methodologies tackle and attempt to solve and by the intensity of scientific and discursive instruments of thought that go into their choice of applied research―punctiliously captured in the spectacular language of the epistemology of topical diversity.

This is what good scholars are noted for!
Ultimately, then, the so-called h-index or citation impact analysis also adds a further layer of institutional influence and credibility to a scientist’s established station in the hierarchy of knowledge production―in pursuit of the advancement of knowledge in academia, in a lay society, etc. Knowledge production does in fact anchor human civilization. Intrinsic human need for achievement recognition, institutional pressure, proving one’s intellectual worth, academic competition, industry competition and rivalry, advancing one’s professional career, intellectual property concerns, setting eyes on grant funding and prestigious prize(s) (the Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal, the Breakthrough Prize, the American Book Award, the Pulitzer Prize, etc.), and institutions rankings have fueled a powerful industry in the art of scientific and academic publishing.

In the end, Dr. Trego’s progressive vision serves as a complimentary reminder of the $60 million the US Congress set aside in 2018 to study and prevent maternal mortality (antepartum, postpartum) across America (Chuck, 2018). This study covers a five-year span of preventive intervention research in which $12 million is released annually for the project. Scholars, researchers, OB/GYN specialists, nurse-midwives, feminists, women’s health specialists and advocates, politicians, OB/GYN nurses and others in allied disciplines, religious leaders, the lay public, and professors of women’s health studies understand the enormity of maternal mortality in America.

But, most importantly of all, she clearly understands the instrumental value and utilization of collaboration and teamwork in research efforts (Quickening, 2019), a fact that I think marks a high point in her careerist pursuit of professional development as a nurse scientist of national repute.

Moreover, as a result of the alarming rate of information explosion in the enterprise of knowledge production, specialization becomes an important normative fixture in the multidisciplinary disposition of research undertakings but this may necessarily curtail a researcher’s reach into the Holy Grail of knowledge acquisition beyond the ever-expanding domain ontology of a particular field of study.

Division of labor therefore becomes an essential component of research methodology.

Of course this phenomenon happens in teaching as well. This may partly explain why she and Dr. Vailey-Dail demonstrated a high degree of close complementarity in the discharge of their professorial responsibilities. This shared complementarity of mostly class-based professorial grooming of impressionable students somehow minified the aesthetic distance between the spatial platform of pupillary listenership and the instructional tutelage of Dr. Vailey-Dail, of Dr. Trego. This created a strain-free climate of cordiality that made it possible for students and professors to engage in fruitful exchanges. Both students and professors availed themselves of the opportunity to trade ideas about caring science in respect of patient- and family-centered obstetrics, obstetric pharmacology, and non-pharmacologic palliative or comfort interventions.

Like Dr. Trego, Dr. Vailey-Dail taught her part of the class so well. She even answered all the volley of obstetric-related questions students bombarded her with with a remarkable degree of authority presence―shaped by the rational and pragmatic forces of unadorned longanimity. Her soft-spoken approach to professional sociality with students, like Dr. Trego’s, bore its own symbolic logic or signature armature of relational humanism. Her educational study trips with graduate students to countries such as Ecuador opened up unlimited possibilities for cosmopolitan edification and transcultural nursing. Beyond that, her designation as a national asset with respect to her clinical specialty in prenatal and family planning issues is not in question. Her demonstrable mastery of these aspects of the OB class unmistakably bears out this deserving designation and professorial authority in these specialties. According to the website of the University of Colorado (2019b):

"Dr. Dailey-Vail also works as a national health care consultant for outpatient women’s health clinics and community health centers assisting with quality management and clinical operations. While serving as Clinical Director at Sheridan Health Services, a nurse managed Federally Qualified Health Center with integrated dental, behavioral health, and substance use disorder services, she lead [sic] the clinical and quality components of the Bureau of Primary Care Operational Site Visit (OSV) and Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) application with NCQA. The OSV resulted in a perfect score, meeting all 19 program requirements and the PCMH application resulted in national recognition as a Level 2 PCMH practice."

But then again punctuating their lively lecture sessions with unexacting rhythms of innocuous smiles and laughter against a backcloth of bodily-kinesthetic warmth, these two professors gained the confidence of their students and thereby fostered a more conducive atmosphere for the singular purpose of initiating serious intellectual discourse and productive exchanges on matters specific to students’ interests, especially as they relate to women’s health and public policy. Also the absorbing clarity of their language of instructional delivery, in combination with my previous foundational investment in Prof. Brenda Owen’s class, made the class more attractive to me and this whetted my appetite for more informational content in the OB class.

Unbeknownst to me, however, the spatial continuum of this kind of facilitative atmosphere would spill over into the clinical ambiences of CEC/Sim and the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH). The level of organizational and staff professionalism at UCH is simply stunning. Also, the level of technical and professional competence in clinical practice at this institution is arguably far above par. No wonder this institution ranks among the best of America’s teaching hospitals.

Ms. Monica Panaitisor, a clinical instructor, and Ms. Jennifer Davis, a clinical scholar, respectively assumed the overall charge of students’ clinical education in these environments. Both demonstrated a high degree of preceptorial and instructorial competence and professionalism.

Ms. Panaitisor had a unique way of transmitting bodies of complex clinical knowledge to students that seemed to generate effortless recall of dense didactic information on her part and of procedural simplification of the transformational execution of these bodies of clinical knowledge.

It is not, however, easy trying to explain away her pedagogic facility with diversionary allusions, notions of preceptorial consuetude, and self-serving claims rooted in the knowledge of her relatively long tenure of accumulating clinical experience as a professional nurse and a clinical instructor.

Even so, the accretions of clinical knowledge and practical demonstration of same to suggestible students do in fact come with high expectations from students and instructor alike, the enabling temperament of the clinical ambience, instructorial confidence and comfort, students’ general preparedness for live clinical enactments, the level of professional rapport between students and instructor, the nature and didactic content of clinical assignments, students’ expressed appreciation for the art of dramatic enactment as well as for instructorial thespian flair, and the particularity of students’ ready digestibility of imparted clinical knowledge.

And more!
Meanwhile, the level of physical flexibility Ms. Panaitisor enjoyed within the purview of the strong constitution of her anatomic-physiologic integrity easily translated into a demonstrable praxis of didactic, theoretical concretion in clinical settings, but if truth be told, it does not always come easy for some of us, if at all, to alchemize the trope of didactic abstraction into a golden chalice of profound clinical attestation where the rational desirability of physical flexibility dictates the defining character of the symbolic logic of ideational legitimacy.

Known for her signature rhetorical extemporaneity, Ms. Panaitisor liquidly stood halfway between theory and praxis as the paramount categorial representation of convertibility.

Finally, her hands-on approach to the clinical indoctrination of students further institutionalized her expertise in the professionalization of students. “When you become a nurse you will continue to have simulations for different certifications you will need and for yearly competencies. Preparation is always helpful when going through clinical scenarios,” she tells me in a carefully worded email. “The best thing to remember about simulation is that it is a safe environment, built to allow you to make mistakes without affecting a real patient, that is how you can learn...Confidence takes time and experience. It will come with time. It shows great strength that you are working on the aspects of yourself that you feel need improvement. That is very commendable.”

Ms. Davis’s professional relationship with her assigned clinical students, on the other hand, differed somewhat from Ms. Panaitisor’s in the organizational structure and directional intimacy of supervision. The latter exercised a more direct mediating or interventionist role in the formal activities of clinical students. Contrary to the latter’s direct supervisory formula, the former exercised her valence of supervisory management of clinical students via an orchestrated agency of preceptorial oversight. This arrangement nevertheless created a peculiar paradox of institutional sufficiency, offering different but sui generis interlocking contextual pathways for students to play a part in the experience of their own professional growth through structured channels of articulate socialization with the strategic oversight and authority of organizational maturity.

Then again, this layered hierarchy of supervisory interaction with students inherently constituted a corrective buffer against the potential danger of institutional devolution born of functional duplication of leadership roles. This way, students developed a closer yet transient bond with preceptors than with the resident clinical scholar. Thus the clinical scholar’s knowledge of a student’s clinical work in her facility was primarily indirect, derivative, secondhand.

In this context the outright removal or suppression of the variable of oversight intimacy in the direct equation of supervisory management, represented by the professional wisdom of the office of the clinical scholar, potentially perverted the relational matrix of executive authority―in the main.

Ms. Davis skirted these potential hurdles in the complex character of organizational behavior by directly engaging students in separate capacities at the end of their clinical shifts. This unique moment of familiarization engagement with students offered her an opportunity to evaluate the student’s clinical experience that day, including potential challenges faced by student in the course of clinical work, lessons learned from observing operative procedures, a discussion of priority concerns in respect of the mechanics of shadowing, S.M.A.R.T goals, student’s working relationship with preceptors, patient-centered health assessment procedures, patient monitoring, utility of the patient- and family-centered clinical method in achieving the aims of homeostasis, addressing questions related to the clinical significance and interpretation of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) tracings and such.

At this point in time, both student and clinical scholar learned from each other.

The brief sessions with students took the form of debriefing exercises, modified versions of Socratic dialogue, sort of, that painted a picture of an assessment profile which directly spoke to the evolving psychology of pupillary response to the taxing demands and expectations of clinical organization and observational learning. This sharply contrasted with the core instructorial oversight mandate of Ms. Panaitisor whose direct observation and interaction with clinical students produced firsthand data. Yet still both clinical scholar and Ms. Panaitisor directly reported their findings, I suppose, to the distinguée lead professor of my OB class, Dr. Dailey-Vail.

Furthermore, the absence of aesthetic distance between student and clinical scholar during active or hectic clinical sessions was made up for by direct informational conveyance from assigned preceptor to clinical scholar, meaning that the latter’s drawn conclusions on assessment findings as regards the clinical work of a particular student may have depended mostly on the credibility, approval, or validation of her subordinate preceptorial sources. In any case Ms. Davis had the nous to make sense of the primary or raw data submitted to her, after all. As I noted elsewhere filled with a sense of obligation and fairness, she circumvented the intrinsic biases in assessment data collection and analysis by engaging students face to face free from an atmosphere of intimidation, public or private humiliation, and intolerance, making it possible for these students to express themselves accordingly.

Students were, thus, under no obligation to uncritically endorse their evaluation reviews as a touching farewell or parting missive to the fateful denouement of their clinical assignments. Students also, in turn, had an opportunity to evaluate clinical scholar and preceptor. No categorical injunction existed in the scheme of organizational relational matrix that pointed preceptor, clinical scholar, or student in the direction of demanding a quid pro quo for the express purpose of writing a favorable recommendation or evaluation. Objectivity and openness marked the authorial intent of the evaluation process―technically appropriate for performance measurement templates and evaluation recommendations. Rather, on principle, Ms. Davis glittered with unrestrained elation and boomed with pride in the knowledge that her students were at least learning as part of the process of clinical maturation and professional development.

Evaluations gave clear indications of a student’s understanding of the clinical process, organizational behavior and protocols, responsibilities of patients as well as of professional and student nurses, organizational professionalism, principles of clinical and professional communication, preceptorial role-playing as part of the general process of prosecuting the patient- and family-centered clinical method, and so on. Students learn a lot during this clinical dispensation. In fine, the content totality of the compartmentalized evaluations provided great insights into the summary output of the student during the four-day, twelve-hour clinical period.

And yet the Anschutz Medical Campus nursing faculty is not only interested in the question of academic rigor. Institutional and pupillary pursuit of academic rigor is all good and well but it does not always constitute a defining precondition for material success since academic rigor, deemed by some as the sine qua non of upward mobility, does not exist in a vacuum. Other factors such as luck, opportunity, and family connections are also amenable to the existential equation of upward mobility. Granted, the ultimate worth of man is not defined by the regurgitative powers of the mind. Theories come and go but the intrinsic worth of a man remains entire.

The fact is that the faculty is also interested in the holistic wellbeing of the student. For instance, Dr. Dailey-Vail voluntarily sharpened my pencils for me before I took my OB final, unasked. Prof. Theresa Nino also engaged me in a pep talk a few minutes prior to my OB final. Prof. Owen openly expressed to me her desire to see me graduate. Dr. Susan Bonini and I also ran into each other on her office floor as I was readying myself for an exam; she had an empowering confab with me during which she openly expressed her happiness of seeing me back in the program. She was quite happy that I did not walk out of the program because of my previous experience. Sharing an important aspect of her own nursing school experiences taught me to confront challenges in life as they came, never to give up on life, and to remain optimistic about life.

As expected, these “little” acts of kindness and snips of reassuring, positive remarks created strong bonds between faculty and students which, among other things, also significantly contributed to easing the passage of students through the gridlock of nursing education. For a long time, I have wondered why I never had these kind-hearted professionals as potential supervisors and employers in my places of employment wherever I have lived in the US. Maybe my peradventure of human nature has no basis in fact―or that it is grossly misplaced, but if so, what exactly am I missing in the game theory of human nature?

AMC has a lot to teach the world.
Chuck, E. (2018). An amazing first step: Advocates hail Congress’s maternal mortality prevention bill. Retrieved from

Duster, C., & Zeleny, J. (2019). BBC: Obama says women are “indisputably” better leading. Retrieved from

Eisenberg, B. (2018). Lori Trego selected as Distinguished Nurse Scholar-in-Residence at the National Academy of Medicine. Retrieved from

Jaschik, S. (2005).What Larry Summers said. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

Obama, B. (2016). Glamour exclusive: President Barack Obama says, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Retrieved from

Quickening. (2019). Q&A with Lori Trego, Distinguished Nurse Scholar in residence at the National Academy of Nursing. The Official Digital Newsletter of the American College of Nurse-Midwife. Retrieved from

Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: A critical review. American Psychologist, 60 (9), 950-958.

University of Colorado (UC). (2019a). Lori Trego. Retrieved from

University of Colorado (UC). (2019b). Jennifer Dailey-Vail. Retrieved from