<p>Interesting point about the timing of the judging. I certainly do not want to take anything away from those who are truly amazing and deserving. I think that the spirit of many of these posts is to preserve the integrity of the competition for those who are truly deserving. I cast a jaundiced eye towards some of the contests because of what I have personally seen (and don't get me started on chess tournaments during which parents tell their children where to move in another language...that's quite a treat too). It's time for parents (teachers, mentors, etc) to allow children to explore and learn on their own and in a manner appropriate to their age and experience. High school kids will high school science backgrounds are not equipped to fully understand some of these very sophisticated projects...why would we expect them to? Isn't that why they go to college and on to graduate school?
Has anyone Googled the parents of these Intel winners? I have heard from friends that it can be quite revealing...one can always say that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...but sometimes it doesn't fall far enough...</p>
<p>Contrary to what a few posters have stated in the past, proximity and connections are absolutely everything. I am knowledgable of the Stony Brook program since my friend completed a project there and achieved Intel semifinalist status. He went to a upscale high school in Long Island with many other students who were also part of the intel project. Of course, he did a lot of leg work and labor, but anyone who was motivated enough could also put in the same effort if they were given the chance. I can assure you that most other intelligent and aspiring high school students wouldn't have this golden opportunity.</p>
<p>Some past posters have also suggested that "every state has a university" or something to that effect. It is very different to have a state university located an hour away from you as opposed to having a research internship literally hand fed to you in your high school. There is nothing wrong with pursing opportunites, but when rewards total in the thousands of dollars, its a different story.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, H was just asked to act a mentor for a h.s. kid's independent research project. It could lead to an Intel or other competition entry. H.S. insists that the kids seek out their own mentors. The kid picked H's brain a bit about bio-med engineering field, H sent some literature, and made himself available for questions as the project unfolds. This school sounds as if they understand the spirit of the competition.</p>
<p>I read through many of the biographies of the finalists from the links above. It seems to me that some of these children are prodigies and their true brilliance would have, without a doubt, allowed them to design and carry out complex projects. A few students, particularly those in the social and behavioral sciences, had projects which I can imagine that a bright high schooler would be competent to research and complete. But many of these projects obviously required tremendous access to highly specialized resources, equipment, training and data completely unavailable to the general population. Where, I ask, could my freshman D obtain tissue samples of human tumors? Let me check on e-bay right now and get back to you. This topic reminds me of when my son was trying to do a school science project about microorganisms in local pond water. He couldn't even obtain a basic, working microscope from our school district, which is pretty affluent. So, I guess I'm still skeptical.</p>
<p>I have to echo 2boysima's post, which I also expressed in post #193 last year on this thread last year: those of you are skeptical about Intel finalists need to make that spring-time trip to DC. While perhaps at the semi-finalist level, there's some who are selected for the wrong reasons, the ones who make up that final group are just amazing.</p>
<p>"Where, I ask, could my freshman D obtain tissue samples of human tumors? Let me check on e-bay right now and get back to you." LOL! But knowing some of the wacky stuff that turns up on ebay, it's a possibility.....</p>
<p>When I was in high school, the biology teacher asked that we bring an earthworm for the next dissection class. This was an urban school, and the only plants we had were in flower pots. Only one student came in with the requisite earthworm. How many careers in the sciences died right there? :(</p>
<p>Originally Posted by kandinskyspotato...post # 180</p>
<p>"Although I disagree with the portrait painted by the nytimes article, there is a ring of truth to it; we did have it pretty easy relative to some other students. I remember one day a train on the long island rail road broke down, and a sea of little cookie-cutter nerds on their way to stony brook got of the train. It really is an industry, and it's very competitive. We're not all geniuses, but we worked pretty damn hard to get there."</p>
<p>"..I would like to see the kid in Kansas who is passionate about tornado research receive his due.."</p>
<p>Well I know of a kid in Kansas (Berurah's son) who was not passionate about tornados, but about some medical thingy since he was in 7th grade.</p>
<p>That's the kind of kid who deserves to win the Intel. We read about Yi Sun out here...he's also quite the wunderkind. There are many deserving kids worthy of winning the Intel. It's always delightful to hear about them.</p>
<p>There is a very interesting article in Scientific American (this month I think) about becoming an expert.</p>
<p>The study group was chess players, primarily, for reasons detailed in the article. A few interesting facts:</p>
<ol>
<li>Kids nowadays might become 'experts' in music or chess or sports more rapidly than their predecessors because of easier access to the body of knowledge that allows this to take place-- but they might still be not as 'creative.' There is a quote about a person needing to exert the equivalent of 10 years of strenuous effort to develop expertise. </li>
<li>It is not the 'talent' but rather the motivation to develop 'talent' that seems key. It is the motivation that allows a person to continually seek the next level of challenge, not the talent itself. And, it is the continual seeking of challenge that distinguishes the expert from the complacent/merely accomplished. </li>
<li>It is not the analytical skill, but rather the capacity to instantaneously use information from long term memory and apply this pattern appreciation with a degree of active thinking that allows experts to surpass non-experts. The cognitive process of experts is different than that of non-experts.</li>
<li>Kids born such that their birth dates make them the oldest in sports leagues as they begin organized sports are at a big advantage. Older, bigger and often more coordinated simply by virtue of maturation, they are successful early on and this success breeds success. </li>
</ol>
<p>There is also the discussion of 'prodigizing' kids....who are in fact made, not born!!</p>
<p>Now, off to work on that x-box prodigy of mine. How do these legitimate (ie not excessively 'helped') youngsters do it? Hard work, of course. Plus, access.</p>
<p>this from a semi finalist mentor:</p>
<p>While I provided him with the topic for his Intel project and gave him
advice, the credit goes to him for his motivation and his efforts.'' </p>
<p>Motivation and efforts- not the ideas- gee, kind of like showing up and being lead around</p>
<p>I find the idea behind the Scientific American article fascinating...what makes a prodigy? By my own definition, they are born not made. One can learn how to play the Brahms violin concerto at the age of four, but only a prodigy will be able to understand and interpret it like a forty-year old. Those are rare talents. If one becomes a chess master by the age of ten, that is, by my definition, a prodigy. To master the nuances (particularly of the end game) at that level by that age is prodigious. In my experience, these kids do work, but not nearly as much as their less prodigious counterparts...they absorb knowledge like a sponge and understand everything at a much higher level. When I speak to a ten-year old violin prodigy about music, the conversation is much like the one I would have with a twenty-year old Julliard grad. It seems inborn and completely natural to them...like Mozart.
My husband calls them "incomplete resets" as if they were reincarnated from the old masters but not rewound all the way...they are, in fact, adults in the bodies of children. I need to read that article!
Citygirlsmom..."I provided him with the topic"??? Oh brother.</p>
<p>Symphony mom,
The article is surprising in that conclusion I think. I think aptitude is necessary but not sufficient for brilliance. The lack of carryover of the type of instantaneous recall needed for topic-specific expertise into other domains is notable as well-- I think this is where the aptitude part comes in. The pending prodigy has the hardwiring for a particular type of topic.
Anyways, read the article, I can't fully do it justice and it is illuminating. Also, likely to produce more sports red-shirting among 4 year olds in Texas (I kid you not).</p>
<p>Anitaw...really fascinating..I will get the article tomorrow. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!
And, as far as red-shirting 4-year olds...I am not surprised. My sister has a five-year old and tells me that the new growth industry among the kindergarten set is personal training. The parents want to build a better and more accomplished soccer player...so he can get college scholarships. As much as I hold these parents responsible for their insanity, I think colleges are also accountable for the mounting pressure to be brilliant and expert by the age of 18. In my day (dark ages), it was enough to be smart, well-rounded, a good person and a leader. Yes, we played the violin (like the four-year olds today:) but we were children. I think childhood is a thing of the past in many places...and we will feel the consequences eventually. Get those four-year olds out of those red shirts!</p>
<p>We have a science research program at our high school that acts as an incubator for Intel winners. The kids start freshman year by reading 100 Scientific American difficulty level articles and summarizing then. Then they move on to real scientific journals and present a poster on the subject in the spring. From there they look for mentors in a field they've research. (Not sure of the exact timing because my son dropped out of the course!) The kids who stick with it put enormous time and effort into getting up to speed so they are not completely useless in the lab. They will all have had one full year of high school level biology and chemistry before they work in anyone's lab. And some were further advanced than that.</p>
<p>I don't think it's surprising that many parents of these students are also scientists. Science is a regular topic at our dinner table (Dad is a biologist,) so a kid who has any natural interest in biology will get the spark and side knowledge early. Our kid of course decided he hated biology, and only wants to do computer programming. Because of my husband's connections we've been able to set up opportunities for our son to do computer programming for various labs including my husband's own lab. While my son is not going to be in line for the Intel - his work has been acknowledged in a couple of papers. I don't feel guilty about it. And in fact the fact that we couldn't push our son to stay with the program, he certainly has the brains for it, but he didn't have the drive, shows me that most of the Intel kids deserve what they get. The winners at our school are all very, very, very smart and very, very, very hard working. </p>
<p>We haven't been able to be nearly so helpful for other interests our kids have had - sports or music for example. No one complains that Yo-Yo Ma's parents were musicians, do they?</p>
<p>FWIW, criticizing a system that allows extensive adult participation in a high contest does not equate to criticizing or questioning the intelligence and dedication of the students involved. People are correct to point out that the winners are true academic stars. The issue is that allowing extraordinary participation, not to mention openly advocating and rewarding it by placing the bar even higher is what is so reprehensible. </p>
<p>Further, while the examples cited by posters who are aware of clear abuses might not be relevant to the 40 finalists, it cannot be dismissed arbitrarily as expressions of sour grapes. The reality is that some parents go througn extreme lengths to CREATE the perfect candidates out of thin air. One particular devious trick is the swapping of prepared research between families to hide the parental connection to a specific research. </p>
<p>Forcing youngster to spend time in a lab and spoon-feeding with information that is well beyond their age and capabilities is a brighter reflection of misguided parental aspirations -and vicarious distortions- than a teenager passion. </p>
<p>Look around you and ask questions to the students who prefer the white coat over a team jersey! The answers might surprise you.</p>
<p>"Forcing youngster to spend time in a lab and spoon-feeding with information that is well beyond their age and capabilities is a brighter reflection of misguided parental aspirations -and vicarious distortions- than a teenager passion."</p>
<p>Sorry, xiggi, but that describes exactly 0% of the even modestly successful science competition kids I've met among my kids' friends. Most of them have parents who did not go to college at all, or who went to college in a foreign country and have non-academic, non-professional jobs here. Many of the parents barely speak English. None of the parents are swapping research with anyone. The kids are completely responsible for their own educations and college admissions process. (There's often a lot of conflict with their parents about leaving town, or choosing to live in a dorm. Not so much about going to college itself -- the school actually makes all the parents of entering students come to meetings where the principal says "This school is about getting into college and graduating from college. There are lots of ways to do that. But if you are not willing to support your child going to college and staying there, tell me right now and I'll help you find another good school." It's not College Confidential-land, that's for sure.)</p>
<p>This includes a national first-place winner in his subject area, by the way. Whose research topic involved working with stem cells and sophisticated equipment that he got access to through an academic lab. Whether he and the others had too much help or not is an interesting question, but if they got too much help at the very least they got it themselves. Their parents were not in the game. (And believe me, the rivalry among these kids is such that if someone's parents WERE involved, it would be *****ed about endlessly.)</p>
<p>Of course, I'm not calling you a liar, but your experience -- like mine, apparently -- is not universal.</p>
<p>"Sorry, xiggi, but that describes exactly 0% of the even modestly successful science competition kids I've met among my kids' friends."</p>
<p>No need for feeling sorry. </p>
<p>By the way, please reread what I posted. The examples you cite are real and nobody tries to diminish the merits of students who face huge odds and still perform. However, I wasn't addressing them, wasn't I? I am quite certain that it is not that hard to figure out the candidates who DID receive extraordinary help. For every Kavvya and Blair, there are hundreds of honest participants. However, that does not magically make the cheaters ineffective nor quite expert in fooling the judges. Blair did get accepted by Harvard in spite of her fabricated resume; Kavvya did get her plagiarized opus published. It took the the work of AMATEURS to out them out. </p>
<p>It does not matter if the cases are isolated or not; they DO exist ... as the story in the original post clearly demonstrates. The fact that you or I did not witness any of what is described in the article is not relevant.</p>
<p>Mathmom: I don't think anyone is saying you should feel guilty about H using a connection or two to open doors for your son. But wouldn't your H feel guilty if he created a project for your son, was heavily involved in its development, and then your son passed it off as his own? And won tons of recognition, $$$, and scholarship offers?</p>
<p>Yo-Yo Ma is playing the cello solo. All the influences of his family, teachers, and fellow musicians have been critical to his growth. But he's the man on stage. All young musicians are taught the standard repertoire. Of course some soar and some sink. But musician parents aren't able to give their kids a "special" Mozart concerto that no other child is privy to that will set their prodigy apart. That seems to be happening with Intel. (Although it just occurred to me that there are propably composition competitions that are ripe for cheating....)</p>
<p>"Redshirting" for youngsters is big around here. Personal trainers, too. My son has plenty of boys in his class who are more than a year older. 20/20 hindsight: I wish I'd held him back, not because I'm seeking athletic greatness, but because he's sometimes less mature and street-savy than many in the grade.</p>