An honest look at how Intel Finalists get there

<p>Yo Yo Ma may very well have been privy to all kinds of encouragement and connections that non-musical parents would have been clueless about. Many performer's children have access to connections that us average folk don't know exist. However, I've certainly benefited from the music of Yo Yo Ma, the acting and directing of Michael Douglas and George Cloony etc etc. (I've also wished that Paris Hilton and Nicole Richey never had any special connections!) </p>

<p>Someday, we may all benefit from the connections that some Intel/STS participants have. There are former finalists who are leaders in their fields...and many of them were, no doubt, children of scientists, graduates of HS with research programs etc.</p>

<p>Students who live near a research university, or go to a HS with a formal research program, or who have parents who are scientists, clearly have easier access to resources in this particular arena versus anyone without those connections --- but that advantage does not exclude others from participating AND winning. </p>

<p>Please don't confuse dishonesty and cheating with resourcefulness and networking. Life isn't fair, and there are cheaters -- even where our expectations are "perfect" and "equal" competition. Fortunately, Xiggi points out that for every dishonest participant, their are hundreds of honest ones.</p>

<p>So why should we change the timing of the award just because there might be a cheater or two among the winners?</p>

<p>And really setting up projects and handholding is what my husband has to do with every grad student, but most of them do understand the work they are doing. Every year he says he really should only take post-docs because grad students are so much trouble. He admires the professors who are willing to take high school students into their lab, because they really are a lot of work to train up.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but that advantage does not exclude others from participating AND winning.

[/quote]
You clearly are quite uninformed about the educational sytem available to most of the country. In high schools that can't offer trig because they don't have a qualified teacher, you'll be hard pressed to turn out an Intel applicant, much less a winner. </p>

<p>I have no problem with the advantaged kids winning Intel. I have a problem when they believe that makes them smarter or better than other kids with no such advantage. I have problem with the entitlement they believe goes with having that opportunity.</p>

<p>Having attended a high school...more than a few years ago...that did not offer calculus, all languages ended at 3rd year, and didn't offer even 1 AP classes -- I am quite informed about the inequality of the education system in this country.</p>

<p>Perhaps the school that doesn't offer trig -- where the brilliant and motivated student doesn't have the resources (connections and economic) to find a mentor -- will have lots of Gate Millenium scholars to balance the "advantaged" schools that produce a few of the Intel/STS finalists.</p>

<p>I have no problem with resourceful kids or those who seek connections in order to accomplish what THEY want to accomplish. I do have a problem with kids who pass off research that is spoonfed into them by famous scientists as their own. It is the same as a music kid asking his famous parent to tape his audition and passing it off as his own. Only in that case, the fraud is easily uncovered once the kid appears in person. In the case of Intel kids, it is not so easily discovered. Are most of the Intel winners for real? Sure...most still have parents in the trade, however, (just look at the list of finalists and see how many parents have "Dr." by their name) and most have access to resources that other equally brilliant kids do not. Unfair? Yes. But it is also unfair that some kids' parents can build a dorm and buy their less-than-brilliant children into college. We know many kids who go to the Math and Physics Olympiads and who have math and physics professors for parents. Are they prepared by their parents? Sure. But these kids are still the ones taking the tests. I have less of a problem with that, and less of a problem with Yo Yo Ma (who far surpassed his parents with his musical genius).
I am much more bothered by the ethics of today. With the heightened zero sum competition of this generation, I think we are entering a dangerous time in which kids cheat to get ahead and their parents not only condone the cheating, but actively facilitate it. I have told my kids that the profession of the future is defense law because many will continue to do whatever it takes to succeed, whatever the means, and will eventually have the SEC knocking on their doors. In the professional science world, dishonesty will taint one forever. If someone fudges his research, steals it from another lab or passes off another's work as his own, it is the end of his career. That's why we must be careful what we teach our children...and why we need to preserve the integrity of high stakes competitions such as Intel. The line between actively pursuing one's scientific passion, thinking up one's OWN hypothesis and attempting to evaluate it, and being invited into a gene therapy lab and having someone give you the idea, the research and the results needs to be brighter.</p>

<p>Though I wish I'd named the thread "How some finalists...", on reading the article over again, I'm still kind of astonished:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Martin Rocek, a Stony Brook physics professor, picked a math project for Neal Wadhwa of Ward Melville. ''It happened there was a new development in the field that was not exceedingly technical,'' says Professor Rocek, who gave Neal private geometry tutorials and suggested several calculations to work out. Those calculations broke new ground in the supermanifold field, but Neal says that at first, he didn't grasp what his answers meant. ''Professor Rocek told me the significance of what I'd found,'' he said. ''I didn't know.''

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So Neal was given the problem, taught the math necessary for the calculations, told what calculations needed to be done, and then had explained to him what meaning it had, because he didn't know.</p>

<p>And he is was a Finalist.</p>

<p>This is not Yo Yo Ma we're talking about here.</p>

<p>"So why should we change the timing of the award just because there might be a cheater or two among the winners?"</p>

<p>No, not at all. One of two occasional cheaters would not require such drastic steps. The current design of the competition is.</p>

<p>However, the most important point is that such competition was never designed to be used in admissions, especially with the inherent inability to recognize what many consider to be organized cheating by well-meaning but misguided parents and scientists who stretch the rules with abandon.</p>

<p>"With the heightened zero sum competition of this generation, I think we are entering a dangerous time in which kids cheat to get ahead and their parents not only condone the cheating, but actively facilitate it." Exactly, symphonymom</p>

<p>That's the problem in a nutshell.</p>

<p>Many established scientists don't immediately recognize the significance of their work until they collaborate with others. Not at all suprising that even a very smart high school student wouldn't recognize it, either. To me, the quotes from the article about the work done by students, and the guidance provided by mentors, does not constitute cheating. It represents fairly typical situations between a student and professor/mentor. Apparently others on this thread disagree.</p>

<p>As has been noted numerous times on this thread, through the supporting materials submitted for Intel/STS and direct questioning of the finalists, the judges are very clued-in to what work was actually done by the students.</p>

<p>I don't know Neal...and don't know if he's brilliant or not. He was on one of the top 16 teams in the 2005 national Science Bowl and was listed as a co-author with Dr. Rocek when their study was published in Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics in 2005. If he just crunched a few numbers, the professor really didn't need to list him as a co-author.</p>

<p>"If he just crunched a few numbers, the professor really didn't need to list him as a co-author."</p>

<p>We will never know the finer details of the relationship between the briliant mentor and his equally brilliant pupil. However, didn't the original article shed some lights on the issue of location and personal contacts. It does not require the skills of Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot to find out that the parents of Neal are very much associated with Stony Brook and are close neighbors. This is most definitely not a crime nor does it causes raising eyebrows too much, but it represents an undeniable fact. The same fact that was exposed by the original article: attending a school like Melville Ward with its specific and obsessive focus on the Intel competition, living in the proximity of Sunny Brook with its especially generous cohort of willing scientists, and having parents with the necessary professional or social contacts does tilt the outcome of the competition in favor of the geographically lucky ones.</p>

<p>Having parents with professional or social contacts tilts the outcomes of lots of life's events in favor of the lucky ones...geographically or otherwise!</p>

<p>^^----^^</p>

<p>Absolutely, and for the most part that is simply a fact of life. However, that does not mean we should abdicate our rights to remain vigilant for the Louis Borstine, Robert Shaw, Katherine Cohen, and others of their ilk who do not hesitate to artificially produce super candidates.</p>

<p>So, Professor Rocek picked the project for Neal, taught the subject to Neal, crunched the numbers for Neal and explained the results to Neal. Then listed Neal as a co-author on an article. And what exactly what Neal's part in all of this? Regurgitating said process for the Intel judges? To me, that is not in the spirit of Intel...but hey, lucky Neal.<br>
Being a participant in the Science Bowl does not add weight to the case either way.
Seriously, how can anyone truly support this kind of "mentoring"? Perhaps that is part of the problem...the fact that we even have to debate this issue means that the lines of honesty are truly blurred.</p>

<p>Ok.
I'm not thrilled that this thread has been revived. But, having read the whole thing, and having been a semifinalist from Ward Melville, I'm going to do my best to tell you all how this works, what I think about it, and then, I will not post on this thread ever again. You can decide whatever you want, but at least hear some facts.</p>

<p>When I was in 9th grade in junior high, we had a presentation during lunch time, and anyone who thought they might be interested in science research was to attend. We learned about the InSTAR program, and how we could apply for it. I don't remember specifically what the application comprised, but it was something along the lines of an essay, maybe a transcript or teacher recommendations. Over the following summer, we learned whether or not we had been selected.</p>

<p>If one was selected, as I was, this meant that you would have one period (of 9) each day for InSTAR class. Around school, we liked to call this class, AP Lunch - we recieved honors credit, but mostly we just ate lunch. We did some projects, like entering the West Point Bridge Design contest, on FIRST competitions, or whatever. And we were taught some basic statistics, like chi-squared tests and student's t tests. If you showed up and put in a modicum of effort, you recieved a good grade.</p>

<p>One day, at the end of tenth grade, it was announced that it would be a good idea to start looking for a mentor if we wanted to do research this summer. Some people seemed to thnk this was a good idea - and others weren't that interested. I thought it would be good to get an early start. Why not work on a project for two years, rather than one? We were handed the outline of a letter which we could modify to suit our purposes. I have posted the gist of this form letter elsewhere on CC. We were then instructed to use the internet to find potential mentors, focusing on areas that we were interested in, and preferably somewhere local to minimize transportation issues as much as possible. We were also given a list of mentors past students had worked with. I wrote to several potential mentors (maybe 10) with little success. I had read published articles by all of them in order to have some idea of what they did. None were interested. I was frustrated. </p>

<p>At the time, I was attending a series of lectures at Stony Brook called mini-med school. One of the presenters gave a really interesting and funny talk. Afterwards, I read several of his journal articles, which were completely unrelated to the lecture. I wrote to him, and though I didn't understand all the details of the papers, he agreed to have me work in his lab for the following two summers. </p>

<p>At this point, I should add that I had no personal connection to this man. He wasn't my dad, or my dad's buddy from med school. Neither of my parents worked for Stony Brook at the time (although in the interests of complete and full disclosure, they are both alums - though not of the med school, where this researcher worked - and my mom is employed by Stony Brook now). The only connection I had was that my close friend's father had worked with him several years ago, though I didn't learn this until after I the researcher had offered me a position in the lab. And no, my friend's dad did not lobby on my behalf. He didn't know I would be working with his former coworker until it had been arranged and I mentioned it to him.</p>

<p>This is a tenuous connection in my town - where Stony Brook is the largest employer. Everyone knows someone who works there, or went there, or whatever. But, few kids I know got research positions based on their connections. It's not fair to argue that because someone's mom works at Stony Brook, they got their research position unfairly. The two are NOT always (or even often, in my experience) related.</p>

<p>So back to my story, then. I worked in this lab 5 days a week, all summer long. I didn't design the experiments. I didn't forumlate the hypothesis. I was a lab tech - pipetting as I was told. In all fairness, this was because I had agreed to stay for two summers. In the first, I would learn the lab techniques, and in the second, I would develop my own project. But, I grew a bit bored, and I did not stay for the second summer.</p>

<p>The following year, I applied for a place in the program run by Dr. Rafailovich, described in the article posted by the OP. I knew several people who had partcipated in the program, and knew that many people had gone on to do very well in science competitions after doing their research there. I applied to the program, and was accepted. Once again, I had zero connection to the researchers working there, and I actually do not know of anyone in the program who did. At this summer program, I worked with students from Ward Melville, yes, but also with students from across Long Island and New York City, and from Connecticut, New Jersey, and Texas.</p>

<p>During the first weeks of the program, we were given sheets describing the main areas of the lab's research. With greater interest in medicine than materials, I at first wanted to do a project on medicated stents, a new development that I had read about in the popular press (this was several years ago - medicated stents are now pretty commonplace. But they were quite new at the time). Unfortunately, none of the postdocs were really interested in helping me on such a project, and eventually I realized that I needed to pick something else. I looked up some papers by the postdocs at the lab, and found that one in particular was working on tissue engineering and the reactions of cells to materials. This was at least semi-close to my original interest, so I approached her. Over the next weeks I read many other papers, just to get an idea of where the field was. I found that all of the tissue engineering projects were working on making patterns with just one type of cell, and i knew that in one's leg, for example, there were many kinds of cells. I wanted to know, how would tissue engineers get different cells to grow together? How could you make patterns with two kinds, or three? From reading the articles I had and from asking the postdoc about her research, I learned that they were using polymer coatings to direct the growth of cells. I theorized - what if you used two polymers, one that attracted each kind of cell, and repelled the other? It was not this simple, as in turned out. The polymers would mix or not mix in the ways I had envisioned, and a polymer that would repell one cell, often repelled all cells. I had to go to the literature to find out which polymers could be safely implanted in humans. Anyway, it was a long process. Often, my mentors would suggest a polymer that I should try - after all, as a rising high school junior, I didn't have extensive knowledge about the properties of all polymers. But often, the suggested polymer wouldn't work as I had expected it to. (Which I discovered using atomic force microscopy, confocal microscopy, and optical microscopy - all of which I was taught to use by postgrads). </p>

<p>In the end, I never found the right polymer to make the method work. But, I had put in many many many hours, including late nights and early mornings, so I wrote it all up. By myself, at least at first. It was 30 pages long when I finished it. I was then required to turn it in to the director of the aforementioned InSTAR program, who proofread it and made suggestions. I fixed it, and had it proofread at least one more time.</p>

<p>At the same time, I was also working on the other components of the application, which included a statement from Dr. Rafailovich, noting that I had not handled the cells myself, in accordance with university policy, but that I had carried out all of the experimentation, microscopy, and analysis. She noted that she and her postdocs had made suggestions for which materials to use (which I should note, often resulted when they saw the microscope pictures I had and they identified the problem with the sample - ie. "these polymers are too miscible - you need something more like X").</p>

<p>I also had to submit 5 personal essays on my drive to be a scientist, intellectual curiosity, etc. These essays were also proofread for me a few times by the director of the InSTAR program. But they were my words - not anyone else's. In addition, I submitted test scores, transcripts, teacher recommendations, and demographic information (what my parent's did for a living was explicitly asked). I was asked if I spoke more than one language, played an instrument or was on sports teams (the answer to all of these was "no").</p>

<p>Then, in mid-november of my senior year, at the height of college app season, I completed my application and mailed it off to Intel. If I hadn't, I would have been immediately dropped from the InSTAR program.</p>

<p>In January, we were notified that my high school had done quite well and that officials from Intel would be coming to make a presentation of the winners. I thought this was a terrible idea. I thought it put too much empahsis on who won and who didn't and since my project didn't work, and I was sure to not be named a winner. I didn't really want my reaction to bad news out there for everyone to see. An assembly was called and I believe the whole school attended. My mom was there, as were about 30 TV and media camera people. I was shocked to have been named a semifinalist - and my picture the following day, clearly shocked, was published in Newsday's online edition. I still don't think there is a need for such assemblies. But that's what we had.</p>

<p>I didn't go on to become a finalist, which was ok. By the time semi-finalist decisions were announced, my college future was set (I had been accepted ED to Rice), as were those of several of my fellow semifinalists. It was obvious to me that the STS judges had not simply been looking at my research, which essentially was a failure, but at my essays and test scores and everything else.</p>

<p>Here's what I think about the process (writing in progress....)</p>

<p>I didn't get by on my connections. That's number one. And my story isn't unusual or uncommon. That's how it worked for pretty much everyone at Ward Melville. My parents did not work at Stony Brook, and I didn't call on my friends' parents to get me the hook-up.</p>

<p>I am angry that some of you have essentially called friends of mine cheaters based on little knowledge, and less tact.</p>

<p>Yes, I was advantaged in the science research game by being a student at Ward Melville. I had access to professors at Stony Brook within easy driving distance, and I had someone to proofread my papers. I had the incentive of submitting to Intel, because if I hadn't I would have been dropped from the Intel program, likly causing a drop in GPA and class rank.</p>

<p>However, as I stated long ago in this thread, there are two important points to be made about the advantages of proximity. 1. It's more about exposure than proximity. and 2. Intel is no different than anything else in this respect.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Ward Melville is the closest public high school to Stony Brook, yes. But it's not much closer than Vandermullen High School in Port Jefferson, NY, or Centereach High School, or at least a few others in the area. And it's further away than some private schools, like The Stony Brook School. These schools don't do nearly as well as Ward Melville. It can't be just about proximity. It's about exposure. Why did I apply for InSTAR in the first place? Truth be told, I wasn't going to. But my older cousin was one of the presenters at the original 9th grade presentation. And all my smart friends seemed to be applying, and I had seen winners on the cover of the local newspaper for years. I wanted to be on the cover of the local newspaper too! For me, it was about exposure. I knew this was an option, and I pursued it. But it wasn't really about geography. Similarly, the year before I worked in the program run by Dr. Rafailovich, a girl from Texas working in the program had done very well in a science competition. Her younger sister later worked in the program. Not becuase it was close, but because she knew it was available, and she knew it was a valuable thing to do.</p></li>
<li><p>Some people are always closer to resources than others. Some people are disadvantaged, some people get extra help. Some people have better schools, some people get more tutoring, some people have more money, and more connections. This is how it is. Yes, some people can rise about their situations. But most cannot. Why blame students who take advantage of what is offered to them.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I think there are some students who expect that Intel is a free ride into college. But they are few, and far between. None of my friends believed this. They all had safety schools. They were dissapointed when they recieved rejection letters, but not indignant. I do not in anyway disagree with giving students a boost for doing research in high school. It takes effort, and shows interest and initiative. But not do I disagree with giving a boost to students who took the one AP class offered by their rural high school, or to the student who has never done anything after school but worked to support her familiy. Everyone makes the best of what they have. And that's what should be rewarded.</p>

<p>As to specific examples, such as that of Neal, the math student, yes, he had help. But, the professor never taught him how to solve the problems. You have misunderstood, if that's what you think. Neal was taught a few tools, but he applied them himself. And no one had ever thought to apply them that way. I hate many of the analogies used on this thread, but I'm going to try one. Debate it as you wish. The math tutorials were not the professor teaching Neal what to do to win intel. Rather, it was as if the professor had given Neal some wood and a saw and some nails, and Neal built a house. And, no one had ever built a house before.</p>

<p>Except, because Neal had never seen a house (in this analogy) he didn't know what it was. It's still amazing.</p>

<p>I'm not going to deny that I had advantages. Look, if I grew up, as one of my friends did, in Center, TX, I would not have entered Intel. Fine. I wouldn't have recieved any boost from it for college apps. But, I would have recieved a boost for geographic diversity, maybe.</p>

<p>Students are given tools, they are given advice, they are given knowledge, by their mentors. But until you know more about Intel and these particular students and their particular projects, I'd appreciate it if you'd quit accusing them of a crime they have not committed. Quit comparing them to Blaire Hornstein or Kaavya Viswanathan. They aren't cheaters. They are advantaged, but it's been put in the open at least for the Intel judges. Just because you don't have all the information, doesn't mean you should jump to conclusions.</p>

<p>And now, I will never post on this thread again, and I will hope it drops into oblivion. If you want to argue, PM me.</p>

<p>Jenskate1 --
Your posts 294 and 296 are the truly honest look at how Intel (STS) finalists get there. Thanks.</p>

<p>As to the parental feeling about cheating issue...Here is a conversation I had several years ago with a girl I had taught and knew well, as I was trying to understand a cheating issue that had taken place at our school and how it was interpreted by a different cultural group.</p>

<p>Me: What would be considered worse by your parents, if you were to get a poor grade in math or if you were to cheat.</p>

<p>She (after considerable consideration): If I were to cheat and get caught. </p>

<p>The assumption that there is a shared 'morality' about the nature of what is justified or consitutes 'cheating' needs to be examined by those who create the codes and rubrics of assessment in the context of multi-cultural groups and groups from varied economic backgrounds.</p>

<p>To create truly 'fair' the intel or other competitive applicants would have to be housed together, have controlled access to internet and other communication with the 'outside', and access to identical resources for the duration of the competition. Parents would have only social access to their children. </p>

<p>Or, the issue can be treated as what it really is, yet another vehicle for star identification that really has very little impact on 99.99% of the college student or HS student population-- and probably very little impact on who is or is not a star 25 or 40 years later.</p>

<p>Anitaw...I agree across the board. Question: how do you address the cultural differences towards cheating? I know parents of kids who were caught downloading tests from a teacher's computer (which they did very cleverly...should have used those skills for good and not evil). They were outraged when the kids were given a choice: receive an "F" in the class or get expelled. The kids never took responsibility for their actions and their parents thought their kids were getting a truly bum deal. It was a lose-lose situation...no one learned anything other than not to get caught.
Even more interesting...the world is shrinking and we are now engaged in business with countries that have very different attitudes towards confidentiality clauses, nondisclosure clauses, patents, etc. It's a brave new world....but does it include a concept of "shared morality"?</p>

<p>I had read an article about IP rights in China. The common phrase is "If you can make it, they can fake it". The govt. considers it a 'victimless' crime. The article went on to say that the Chinese have a tendency to 'borrow' not 'steal'. I am sure many in India think the same way too.</p>