<p>I didn't read this whole thread but wanted to note that when I was looking for an internship I got in contact with a professor at Emory who was interested in having me work for her during the summer but was unable to because Emory apparently has a policy that anyone under 18 is not allowed to work in a lab (even if unpaid). Even the one I eventually got at gatech forced me to jump through dozens of beauracratic hoops that took weeks before I actually got access to the buildings, library, online databases, etc. Not all universities are nearly as inviting to HS students as the one (Stony Brooke was it?) in the article seems to be.</p>
<p>I've read most, but not all of this thread. My kids attend (or attended) a large public magnet high school with a significant math/science orientation. Many kids there (not mine, though) participate in Intel and other science competitions; the school supports it and encourages it. Several friends of my daughter's placed very highly in regional and national rounds a few years ago. Of the ones I knew personally, or knew pretty well vicariously through my daughter, NONE had parents or family connections that plugged them in to anything. Most are, in fact, poor, or close to it. All of them had mentors, but they found those mentors substantially on their own, with a fair amount of help from the school. These kids put in a lot of time, but they are also very, very impressive kids -- focused and dedicated, sparklingly, prodigiously intelligent (e.g., a math prodigy who was taking university courses in 9th grade; a girl for whom English was her fourth language, came to the US at age 14 from a less developed country barely able to speak it, and went from 400 to 680 on her verbal SAT in 18 months). Their mentor-relationships came about because people WANTED to help and to teach them.</p>
<p>And because people wanted to help and to teach them, their mentors wanted them to generate their projects (although in most cases the projects grew out of the mentors' work, with which the students had become familiar over months and years of work). I am sure there are unscrupulous scientists out there who would gift-wrap a project for a high school student, but the vast majority of them -- at least the ones I've spoken with -- respect the education and competition process too much to do anything like that. They are products of the same system; they are proud of what they have accomplished; they have a lot of investment in its fairness and integrity.</p>
<p>The school and its faculty work, really hard, at providing research opportunities to 60-70 kids per class. As you can imagine, that's no easy trick. It helps that this is a large city with a number of academic institutions and a lot of medical and pharmaceutical research, and that alumni of the school are well-distributed throughout the local research community. But it takes a lot of care and feeding to keep those channels open, and to counsel the kids about how to take advantage of them, how not to be exploited, how to work through problems in the relationships. I have enormous respect for the people at the school who devote themselves to this.</p>
<p>Do these kids have an advantage over "October Sky"-type kids? Sure. Is it an unfair one? Maybe, but it's not wealth/power/cheating unfairness. It's being lucky enough to be in a place where, when you raise your hand, people are willing to teach you.</p>
<p>All the denials do not make much difference about the facts that were exposed in the original article. Everyone is entitled to an opinion about the fairness of the current system. But does deciding if the student described in the article is deserving of the award or if the award should be sent to her army of well-meaning "assistants" really constitute a question worth a debate? </p>
<p>From my vantage point, there are a lot Kavvya Vishwanathan and Blair Hornstine clones who, supported by cast of parents with little integrity, make a mockery of the prestigious tournaments through the use of hired mercenaries. The cheaters are rewarded by complacent jury members and misplaced expectations. To uncover the frauds, it takes a bit more: the ingenuity of peers who realize the extent of the truth by knowing the winners when the supporting cast is sleeping at home. </p>
<p>The sole variable is the quantity of lipstick that adorns the pig.</p>
<p>I live near a major university. The high school science fair participants not only "borrow" their parent's research, but they use their parents' labs and doctoral research candidates. None of them are usually gifted, passionate or writing their own work. "October Sky" may be dead, but this is fraud. Intel is looked upon as a ticket to the Ivies...as such, adcoms should do more research to see whether the kids' passions for science are theirs or simply their parents' ploys to get their kids into a good college.</p>
<p>At Intel STS, the 40 finalists go through grueling days of judges questions -- without their parents or mentors. The judges are Nobel prize winners, and leading academics and practioners in math, engineering, science and social science. The top 10 can't be frauds.</p>
<p>As for the 300 semi finalists and other 30 finalists, they must submit numerous essays, official school transcripts, SAT scores etc. It's more rigorous than a college application.</p>
<p>Google the names of the semi-finalists. In most cases, you'll see accomplishments beyond their Intel/STS win. And based on the variety of those accomplishments, they can't all have been done by Mom and Dad...or the paid consultant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Aditi Ramakrishnan, a semifinalist who researched toxicity of nanoparticles in cosmetics, says she would have no project if it were not for the daily help she received from a team of nearby Stony Brook professors. "I'm only 17," she said. "I didn't have the background to create the experiment. I didn't know how to use the equipment. I couldn't create the hypothesis."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Missing the issue, aren't we?</p>
<p>You are missing the point. Obviously these kids can LEARN about what they are presenting. I am not saying they are stupid. They can get good grades and high test scores. They can even play the violin. However, the point is that their research is done by others. The idea is not theirs to begin with. I would like to see a system in which we return to age appropriate research....most 17-year olds just don't have access to institutions that do cutting edge cancer or gene research. I don't think they should be penalized. Yes, their research will be less sophisticated...but at least it will be authentic. Most kids don't have a dad who can explain the research to him and have his post doc help him with essays, synopses and applications. This doesn't show passion as far as I"m concerned...just a fortunate connection.</p>
<p>Yes, Xiggi, we are. Hopefully, Intel will be more careful about screening future applicants. I would love to see a return of "October Sky" candidates. THAT is passion.</p>
<p>Before condemning high school students, look into how many doctoral candidates formulate their own thesis questions. I'm not a practitioner but a close observer. A lot of science research is large scale - involving expensive equipment and a long time frame. It may be more a system of apprenticeship, but I would say the accomplishments are real and genuine. I would hope the Intel, etc. judges are savvy enough to know whether a student is submitting work they can understand and explain. Maybe the problem is the public perception of how science research is conducted.</p>
<p>The nanoparticle type projects aren't the only winners, either. Wasn't there a finalist who did something involving water samples or fish populations from the Snake River? Method matters as much as results and if the high-tech projects are overrepresented in the list of finalists, maybe it's because they are complete projects - the students are backed by professionals who know how to present results.</p>
<p>Read about the research of this year's 1st place Intel/STS winner - Shannon Babb. She was also a top winner at Intel ISEF.</p>
<p>She received help from her father. He "shuttled her to various collection sites at 3 or 4 in the morning." Hope no one has an issue with that kind of assistance! </p>
<p>Getting to assist in a research lab, or contacting a professor to mentor you, is actually quite easy. Also, not every form of research for Intel STS has to be done in a lab....so research can be done with a mentor via e-mail and phone.</p>
<p>My sister is a researcher and agrees that a lot of researchers ride piggy back on the ideas of others. She's worked in many labs and not all of the ideas she investigated were her own. That means that her name doesn't appear first on the journal articles. She wouldn't have submitted the research independently in order to get a prize for herself.
My problem with Intel is part of an overall problem with "gaming" college admissions these days. Parents find out that Intel is a great ec that colleges desire and will use whatever means available (and some have some pretty excellent means) to ensure that junior has a great shot at it.<br>
Junior is lost in this process. Yes, he may have learned something...but the desire to do the research was not his and perhaps the subject would not have been one he would have chosen. Driving a kid to collect samples is exactly the kind of help that should be given...not having your own research team of professionals do the work for you. It's kind of a dramatic difference.</p>
<p>Symphonymom, you're building a strawman argument. I come from Long Island, land of 83 Intel semifinalists in 2005. I do not know a single person who has had his parents force him to do science research, much less a project he didn't even like. Even if they did force it, I can't imagine a 17-year-old giving up two summers for many hours a week sticking with a project he hated and then writing a 20-page paper, filling out an application more tedious than most colleges', and giving countless presentations on his research if he were really just "lost in the process." It's just not a plausible scenario.</p>
<p>Even the Stony Brook kids have to apply to get into the competitive high school program; parents have little to do with it. Most of the students from my high school got into university (note: NOT Stony Brook) and hospital labs on their own merits or with a science teacher's guidance. And it's insulting to say that a "research team of professionals" does the work for them. Almost no one has more than ONE already-overworked mentor, and often the mentor does not even see the science paper.</p>
<p>And as for your sister not submitting her research independently... well, really, that's because it's not how the real science world works. There are different judges and expectations when it comes to being published in journals, and you have to play by their rules. Right now, high schoolers play by Intel rules, which are wildly different. It's not as much about achievement as it is about potential, and I think many outsiders forget that. As I mentioned before, Intel has a section on the application reserved only for the mentor to privately answer that deals with how actively the student partook in the project. It's not as though these professors are hired hands as you suggest ("team of professionals"!) who will exaggerate on the application because Daddy is footing the bill. The student almost always works for free, and the parent is usually out of the picture.</p>
<p>Sure, as with anything in life, there may be parental connections in some extreme cases, but I'd venture to say it occurs far more often in other arenas (getting special music/sports lessons for kids) and even worse, in the college admission process itself. Not sure why you are picking on Intel finalists as the most egregious example...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I come from Long Island, land of 83 Intel semifinalists in 2005.
[/quote]
My point exactly. The brilliant kid in a Kansas wheat field or a west Texas oil town doesn't have the assets to compete. So why should the Intel finalist be considered over an equally bright kid that had to overcome far more obstacles to shine? And yet, Intel is perceived as an entitlement to HYPS by many. Fortunately, many schools still value diversity.</p>
<p>Bandit</p>
<p>Your argument holds for many things, not only Intel. A good example was Soozievt's daughter having the ability AND resources available to her to be a ski champion. Tell that to the poor latent skiier in Kansas who had to settle for something else to show his passion.</p>
<p>And those who "perceive" Intel as a ticket into a top college, boy are they wrong! Not even going to go into the dozens of bitter rejected kids I know at my own high school... Honestly, these people are just snobs. Intel's nice, but I got into Yale EA before the results even came out. I'm sure many others did as well.</p>
<p>Also, colleges do give boosts to people from Kansas for just that reason as well. So although the Midwesterner may not have the chance to participate in Intel, the Long Islander going's to have a heck of a lot time harder standing out at Harvard with the 83 others from his area.</p>
<p>"Not sure why you are picking on Intel finalists as the most egregious example..."</p>
<p>Because it is one of the most egregious examples of a program that has been manipulated well beyond its original scope and purpose. The mere fact of announcing the winners AFTER the admission decisions are in would bring the mercenary participation to a standstill. People with genuine interest in sciences would remain, and would still be able to enjoy the benefits of the scholarships. The others -those supposedly extremely rare ones- who see this type of competition solely as an admission benefit would have to review their tactics. </p>
<p>Again, it does not change much about the original story and the questionable participation of Stony Brook. Yes, I'll buy the story of the overtaxed mentor!</p>
<p>PS By the way, it is Soozie's daughter who races downhill, not her mom, not her dad, or an army of coaches. Contrary to the student in the OP story, there isn't someone to level the degree of the slopes.</p>
<p>Well, what do brilliant kids in Kansas or west Texas do with their time after school?</p>
<p>Xiggi is spot on...as usual. One of my very favorite posters, by the way. I think announcing the winners AFTER the admissions process is complete is a fabulous idea.<br>
I'm quite familiar with Stony Brook and that cetainly doesn't change my opinion in any way. In my neck of the woods, kids submit research done in their own parents' labs...Most of their summers are spent in these labs. Maybe once in a while a kid will have EXACTLY the same scientific curiousity as dad or mom...but rarely. One kid we know made it to Intel and won our state science fair doing research HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY have done himself...he was a ninth grader and didn't even have enough basic science under his belt. The research was part of his father's project (a simple Google search...done by some of his friends... revealed that his father had just presented a paper on the same subject). Most of us parents rolled our eyes because we happen to know that this kid is much more interested in playing in a rock band than he is in science. His mother openly acknowledged that she wanted to make sure he had SOMETHING on his resume besides rock music. This is so sad. The kid is actually a decent musician...but his parents are rocket scientists and really don't understand his passion. He's a bright kid and was well schooled for the judges...so he did learn something...but it wasn't HIS passion. He's not going to be a scientist.
I'm on another thread about diversity...and it's a similar theme: if the system is abused, it fails to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish. Intel was supposed to celebrate those who are passionate about science...the future innovators of tomorrow. Now there are high schools dedicated to churning out science fair winners and parents who are willing to do whatever it takes to give their kid an extra edge in the admissions process. It's necessary to make sure we don't lose sight of what the objective is...I would like to see the kid in Kansas who is passionate about tornado research receive his due...and not the kid who is in way over his head "researching" gene therapy while doing his high school biology homework. If the Nobel Prize winning scientists can't tell the difference, it's time to reexamine the way these competitions are judged.
The music and sports kids are a totally different story...they may have parent and coach support, but it's really difficult to fake talent when playing a concerto or running a race.</p>
<p>Sigh. We can all fight each other with anecdotes because it's hard to argue against them. Symphonymom, if your story is true, then obviously you're right. I guess those types of kids and parents exist; I just haven't seen them in my area. Really makes the rest of us honest folk look bad. </p>
<p>I guess in this case, changing the Intel deadline would weed out those. But wouldn't it also hurt the ones who have a passion for what they do AND can do it well enough to win acclaim? Why should they be punished because some people do it for less-than-noble purposes? If Intel were to change the deadline, there would no way for colleges to distinguish the real young Einsteins from everyone else. In this case, everyone who just wrote on their application "I participated in Intel" would get the same boost. </p>
<p>(On that note, I personally don't believe colleges care that much about being a semifinalist in Intel anyway. I think it's the dedication of spending summers doing research ("mentors" or no mentors) that gets students in.)</p>
<p>Also, to salvage Aditi's reputation, some of the "facts" in the NYT are very misleading. Take this paragraph for example:</p>
<p>" To determine whether nanoparticles did similar damage in human fagocyte cells required Aditi to work with bacteria, something she could not legally do because of her age. So Dr. Celine Pujol did it. "Aditi decided how many nanoparticles to add, what concentrations and the protocol," said Dr. Rafailovich. "But Dr. Pujol did the hands-on work." "</p>
<p>Aside from the fact that the reporter failed to look up "phagocyte" before writing this "exposé," he also implies this bacterial research helped Aditi place in the Intel competition when in fact it didn't. Aditi told me that because she did not do the hands-on work in this part of the project, she refused to include it in her Intel paper, even though her science teacher urged her to (her teacher told her afterwards that she would have made finalist instead of semifinalist had she just included that part!). So before you bash Aditi, please realize that this reporter had something to say and didn't bother finding out the entire story before reporting it as "fact." Fagocyte indeed.</p>
<p>Moving the announcement of winners after April 1st just means the work will be done by the spring of junior year (perhaps started as 8th graders) for those who are intent on getting an admissions boost from these competitions.</p>
<p>There are some wonderful posts on this thread by Intel/STS finalists, their parents, and people who know them. The finalists, and their work, are on display for all of the public in Washington every March during the finals week. I hope some of you who question the sincerity and talent of these students have the opportunity to attend these open sessions. Just like playing a concerto or running a race (which may of them also do!), they can't fake their talent in this setting. No one is pulling the wool over the eyes of the Nobel winning scientists --- it's one of the reasons Intel/STS asks for so much backup, in addition to the research paper.</p>
<p>As for timing --- logistically, it would be difficult to announce after April 1. The judges...many of whom have other jobs...have to review each project AND all of the supporting material for the 40 finalists. They have from the end of January to early March to complete. They take the judging process very seriously and are very familiar with the research, and especially the essays and supporting materials, of the finalists. The judging and other activities for the finalists are a week long. That couldn't happen in April -- because seniors are often attending admit weekends and visiting their college choices. AP exams are in early to mid May, and, throughout the US, schools finish between mid-May and end of June. Although most kids might be willing to miss their graduation to participate in the finals, Intel and STS are sensitive enough not to force students to make that choice. After June, students have jobs, summer commitments etc.</p>
<p>Also, there's a feeling by some on this thread that winning Intel/STS and other science competitions pave the way to automatic admissions to the most elite schools. While a large portion of the finalists, who apply, are admitted to at least one of HYPMS, you will find that their "package" contains much more than their Intel/STS status. </p>
<p>Their bios, which can be found at the link below, don't even list ALL of the EC involvement and accomplishments for most of them:</p>