 So science comes in a lot of flavors and when when you've caught the bug at whatever age there is sometimes a rush to specialize because you can go farther, you get deeper, you're enraptured if you will. In my view it's good to have a chance to smell the roses a bit, to see a bigger part of the picture. Not saying everyone should be renaissance women and men and look at it all. I don't think there that too many Leonardo da Vinci's around or whomever Madame Carries or whatever but it's important to see enough of it to understand where one's talents, passions and long-term energies could be applied even if it's at the hobby level versus career level and opportunities for learning about science come in so many flavors. Now with web-based tools, with just walking around observing nature, of course books, experimental experiences, one can do little things, one's in school of course, structured of course along the lines of courses, lots of opportunities. I think as one grows in one's interest in science it's pretty clear to see what tools you need. Some science requires certain very specific things, you know, higher-order physics, you probably need to know certain math that just even grasp how you attack the problem. Other problems are almost documentary. They require detailed observation over a long time. They're not as intrinsically mathematical as they are perhaps empirical and statistical. So there's room for everyone. I think one needs to sample enough to really decide on the passions. I have colleagues that are great scientists but really English majors because they write well, they communicate it wonderfully and maybe they're not writing the leading edge paper about how Mars works but they're communicating it what a collective of others do and that's still science. So sample the wares, try it out, experiment, get the opportunities to see it as many experiential opportunities as one can in school, online, summer, whatever, they don't have to be rigorous things to scare you and then see what it means. Some people like being out in the field, out in the wilderness exploring things, rocks, trees, bugs. That's field science, there are lots of dimensions of that. Some prefer to be behind the computer developing ways that they can organize data, visualize it, develop mathematics that simulates it. That's cool too and in between there's endless other things. I get really jazzed by measuring things that are important about how something works that are seemingly very unmeasurable, very hard to measure. But if one could, wow, then we could discern why it is or how it got there. So working with engineers to make those previously unmeasurable things happen so I can attack the question is really cool to me and a lot of people at NASA, not a lot but there are a good cross-section of us who attack problems that way. We know what the question is, not a problem, we don't know what that is but we need this set of organized measurements and in space of course we have to get there and blah to do it. So don't over-specialize early, specialize when you're ready, when you have the passion and the direction, you know what you need. It's just like sports. Not everyone is dunking the basketball right away or running the sub-4 minute mile or handling 120 mile an hour slapshots or whatever sport you like. They might try out the sports and find the ones even just the recreational experiences. It's the same in science.