Looks like the competition is getting even more fierce at the country’s elite universities.  In a follow-up to an old post about the admission rate, I took a new look at the undergraduate numbers:

As you can see, these three schools have become increasingly selective over the past ten years.  What’s driving this?  Well, it isn’t a change in the number of admittance offers:

Instead, the trend can be seen in a stark rise in the number of applications:

Why the increase?  I’m not sure.  It’s well known that graduate school applications track the unemployment rate, but I’m not sure about undergraduate applications.  One possible explanation is that while the population continues to grow, the number of slots available at the super-selective universities remains relatively constant.  Another is that self-selection might not be as strong an influence, i.e., that less-qualified students are giving it a shot.

(I would also like to note that acceptance rates have been declining for universities in general, not just the so-called elites.)

Where will it end?  Will the crushing cost of a year of university education finally halt the rise? (Unlikely, given the generous financial aid packages these well-endowed schools are offering “low” income students.)  Will fewer students bother applying once they see the bleak odds of gaining admittance?  Will students decide to apply to fewer universities, thereby decreasing the total number of applications and increasing the university yield rates?  Time will tell.

(Data collected from press releases from the individual schools)

I have a weakness for baked goods.  Muffins, scones, breads… mmm.  It would be really nice to be able to enjoy a warm muffin after hiking through the woods.

Unfortunately, the minimalist backpacking style of which I am so fond is in opposition to such luxury.  My skin-out dry weight is less than 20 pounds, so throwing in a 15-pound Dutch oven is a non-starter.  Sure, there are gizmos like the Outback Oven that are designed to convert stoves into ovens, but they’re not compatible with my backpacking stove, expensive, bulky, and heavy.  The Bakepacker looks promising, but it seems expensive, and I’m not fond of the idea of heating foods in Ziploc-type plastic bags.  What to do?

The solution: steam baking.  I ran across the instructions and had to give it a try.

There are just a few simple steps.  Get two small (about 1″ tall) pieces of aluminum foil, put a small slit in each of them, and put them together to form an “X”.  Place the X in the bottom of a small pot (I used an 850 ml MSR titanium kettle).  Pour water into the pot until the X is nearly covered.  Place a foil muffin cup on top of the X.

Fill the muffin cup about 2/3 full with your favorite “just-add-water” mix (to which you should have added the usual amount of water).  Put the lid on the pot, put the pot on a stove, and fire up the stove.  Let the water boil about 5 minutes, then turn the heat off and let eveything sit for at least another 10 minutes.  After that, open and enjoy!

I tested this on my backpacking trip at Big Basin Redwoods State Park last Friday night.  The blueberry muffin tasted fantastic after a long day on the trail, and there was no mess.  True, the muffin wasn’t as brown as it would have been in a conventional oven, but it was warm and fluffy.

Delicious.

I was reading yet another article about the going-out-of-business sales at Circuit City stores.  Even though they’ve been trying to clear out the merchandise for several weeks — heavily discounted, no less — there’s still a bunch of junk sitting around.

Sure, it’s difficult to predict what will sell and what won’t.  It can be even harder to find the appropriate price.  Regardless, Circuit City seems to have done a rather poor job on both accounts.  Might the fact that the stores carried large amounts of undesirable merchandise have had something to do with the failure of the chain?  Might the fact that the stuff is still around indicate that even the lowered asking prices are still far too high?

It’s not just Circuit City.  The same phenomenon can be seen in after-holiday clearances.   Bags upon bags of disgusting Halloween candy, 50% off.  Hideously tacky Christmas tree ornaments.  Revolting Easter-themed sweatshirts, invariably in size XXXL.  I can’t fathom what must have been running through the store buyers’ heads.  Were they stoned?  Stuck in the 1980s?  Doing a favor for a mob boss?

The mind boggles.

There I was in Target, picking up some mundane supplies, when a display on an aisle end cap caught my eye: four-bottle packs of Pepsi Natural.  Having ventured out from under my rock every once in a while, I was familiar with regular Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi Max, and even Crystal Pepsi, but Pepsi Natural was new to my eyes.  Curiosity was running through me like so much caffeine. What was this Pepsi Natural?  How would it compare to the standard, plebeian product?

In one swift move, I snapped up a four-pack, swung around, and snagged a bottle of regular off of the nearby shelf.  It was time for a new Pepsi Challenge, Pepsi on Pepsi.

The first thing I noticed, other than the fact that the “natural” variant was housed in glass bottles while the regular was in plastic, was the price difference.  Including the CRV, the traditional Pepsi 2-liter rang up at $1.89, while the four 12 fl oz bottles of Pepsi Natural set me back $4.69.  Scale that, and you’ll find that regular runs $3.69 per gallon, while super-ultra-premium-natural goes for an astonishing $12.50 per gallon.  $12.50 per gallon!  For sugar water!  Yes, yes, I realize that bottles might affect the price, but should the glass privilege be worth that much?  I mean, that price is in the bottled-beer neighborhood.  Perhaps the contents would justify the difference.

Pepsi Natural is billed as being “all natural” and made with “sparkling water, sugar, and kola nut extract.”  Indeed, the ingredient list has all that and more.  Compared to the normal Pepsi, we find a different sweetener, a different type of fizzy water, an additional color source, different acids, and the addition of the kola nut extract.

Pepsi Natural ingredient list

The most noticable difference is the exclusion of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in favor of sugar alone.  Some people have made a ruckus in recent years about the virtues of soft drinks sweetened with sugar instead of HFCS.  Most major cola manufacturers made the switch to HFCS in the early 1980s, but some still have small production runs with the old-fashioned sweetener.  Supposedly, Mexican Coca-Cola is sweetened that way, as is some Coke imported for Jewish customers.  Supposedly, the taste is different (better), and possible health effects from HFCS are avoided (never mind the phosphoric acid).  Would the difference be noticable here?  Perhaps not, as regular Pepsi includes both regular sugar and HFCS.

One must also be aware that “natural” doesn’t mean “direct from a plant” or even “organic”; rather, for natural flavors, the chemicals were derived from something that was alive at some point rather than a source like petroleum or coal tar, which are “artificial.”  Either way, you can bet that they went through a lot of processing and refinement before they met the bottle.  Most of the minor ingredients in Pepsi Natural seem to have fairly straightforward routes from plants to bottles, but “natural flavors” remains unappealingly ambiguous.

Enough of that. Time for the taste test.

I let both the regular and natural Pepsi colas chill in the refrigerator overnight.  The next day, I brought them out and poured a glass of each.  Temperature at consumption: 57° F.

The first difference I noticed was the color.  Both were brown, caramel-colored, and clear.  However, the natural Pepsi was much lighter than the regular.  Presumably, the difference was intentional, as they both contain coloring agents.

Pepsi colors: regular on the left, natural on the right

The next difference was the smell.   While the regular cola had a sweet, somewhat acidic scent, the natural version had barely any smell at all.  Perhaps that was related to the relative effervescence of the drinks: the regular appeared far fizzier, which might have released more aromatic compounds into the air.

Time for a sip.  While the regular version had a biting, acidic feel, the natural felt smoother and more mellow.  The regular mouthfeel was inferior, being somewhat astringent.  There was a grittiness on my tounge and teeth with the regular version that seemed absent with the other.  Overall, the taste profile was very similar.  I think that the natural version had hints of cognac, but even in the non-blind test the two drinks were difficult to distinguish.  Later, a couple of my friends also used the adjective “smoother” when describing Pepsi Natural versus regular Pepsi.

To take carbonation and the differing acids out of the picture, I added 1.2 g of sodium bicarbonate to 180 ml of each soda.  The liquids fizzed madly, then went silent.  I tried each of the now-flat drinks, and they tasted virtually identical: two cloyingly sweet, syrupy brown liquids.  The underlying chemistry and provenance of the sweeteners are very different, but the tastes are pretty much the same.

Regardless of the form, the drinks contained what seemed to be an unhealthy amount of sugar.  Pepsi Natural has slightly less sugar in a 12 fl oz serving, with 38 g versus 42 g for regular, but that’s still nearly a quarter of a cup by volume of crystallized sugar:

Amount of sugar in 12 fl oz of Pepsi (42 g)

Will Pepsi Natural find a permanent home in the market?  Hard to say.  History is littered with failed soft drink sub-brands.  The price differential could be an issue, too: when money is tight, who is going to blow the budget by buying “natural” soda?

Frankly, I find all soft drinks to be far too sweet, and the fizziness is unappealing.  I probably consume no more than a quart of soft drinks of any type in a given year.  In fact, I could finish neither of the sample glasses, so most of the carmel-colored gold went down the drain.

In this Pepsi challenge, I’ll choose option (c): still water.  Tastes better, much healthier, and a lot cheaper.  And all natural, too.

This morning, I photographed Stage 2 of the Tour of California (think Tour de France, but in California).  Because of the speed of the riders and the difficulty of travel, I had to chose a single location.  After scouting along the mountainous Tunitas Creek Road, I settled on a spot next to my favorite California lighthouse: Pigeon Point.

The Pigeon Point Lighthouse

My plan was to have two cameras: one radio-triggered remote with a wide-angle lens, and one handheld with telephoto glass.  Each of them would be framed so that both the riders and the lighthouse would be visible.

The lighthouse was the deciding factor in my choice of location.  Although the climb on Tunitas is beautiful, it is really nothing but a nondescript climb in a thick forest.  That could be anywhere.  The Pacific coast?  Well, there’s only one of those.

My remote camera (wrapped in plastic) in the lower right

The weather was dismal: rain, wind, and cold.  Fortunately, the conditions changed by the moment: there would be a downpour, and then all of a sudden, it would be sunny.  Then I’d see another squall barreling towards me over the ocean, and it would be raining again.

After a wonderful dry spell, just after the first advance vehicles from the Tour passed me, torrential rains made landfall.  I had hastily wrapped my remote camera in a zip-top bag, added a makeshift cinefoil hood to its lens, and gaffer-tapped the mess up tight.  My other camera went into a big garbage bag with a hole for the lens.  Who needs those expensive covers?  Everything stayed perfectly dry, even in the worst of it:

Rain!!!

All of these are from the remote camera, hence the identical framing.  Gradually, the rain began to subside:

A little better…

Then, like magic, the clouds parted and the sun emerged — right as the peloton approached.  It was so remarkable that I feel compelled to show it visually:

Amazing!

After that, the storms seemed to disappear, and it became a very pleasant day.  I hope the weather holds for the riders as they continue along the Tour tomorrow!