<p>I
[quote]
f these students are so brilliant and successful in this "natural state", so to speak, then I must in all seriousness ask this question: why would they bother going to college at all?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why polish a diamond in the rough? So that it can really shine more brightly.</p>
<p>Just because a student has made an important discovery in one field, it does not mean that the student has mastered the whole field, let alone other disciplines.</p>
<p>Inasmuch as people hate to hear this, I'll repeat it. Blair Borstine was an exceptionally gifted student, but that never stopped Louis to manipulate the system, (ab)use his connections, and ultimately ruin it for his daughter. However, the system did NOT catch them anymore than it caught Kavvya, the accidental plagiarist. </p>
<p>All the defenses and explanations provided in this thread do not make the smallest dent in the validity of the first quotation.
[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>The words are extremely clear: someone had to think and design the exercise for it to exist. Be it a hired mentor, a well meaning friend, or parents who happen to be leading professionals or researchers in fields Intel does favor. </p>
<p>True geniuses or paint-by-the-numbers and fill-the-blanks attists? Accidental connections or the results of crafty quid pro quos? It does not really matter; there is something fascinating about truly remarkable and unbelievable accomplishments ... they usually are!</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>There was and still is not any mechanism to catch the Blair Horstine of the world, no matter what adcoms like to say about their ability to know whether a student has had a college counselor coach him or her (see the Kayvaa story).<br>
There may still be some students who slip through the Intel process, but I doubt that is the majority of students. And grad students, too, are given help choosing a topic, told where to go for their research, given suggestions as to the relevant theoretical literature, have their drafts critiqued, etc... The same holds true of established scholars as well, although perhaps not as systematically.
Experimental physicists, even after spending four years as physics undergraduate majors, have a lot to learn in their labs from how to operate the equipments, to experimental procedures, to taking and interpreting data. Perhaps Aditi is being overly modest; perhaps her comments are a true reflection of what happened in her case. But it need not invalidate every other finalist's achievements.</p>
<p>Whne you have a mentor say:</p>
<p>my student had no project, no idea, but lots of passion" (paraphrase)</p>
<p>that is very telling</p>
<p>And can't believe I am gonna say this, but xiggi made excellent points.....</p>
<p>You can put almost any smart kid in a lab with professionals and you will get great results, do you think the mentors, etc are going to let shoddy work out of the lab for all to see?</p>
<p>Aditi's coments were very honest,and while it may not invalidate others achievements, it is very fair to raise some serious questions regarding the contest</p>
<p>To not ask questions, have doubts, is to do injustice to the program</p>
<p>When you have many people asking some very difficult questions and so much money and ego and prestige involved, not to mention valuable equipment that is available to an exclusive few, many with connections, and scientific "breakthrougs" made not in a vacuum, but by people surrounded, guided, taught, by professionals, doubts will be raised</p>
<p>if feelings are hurt, oh well, that is the arena they participants have chosen to enter...with the good publicity comes the scrutiny, as it should</p>
<p>"But it need not invalidate every other finalist's achievements."</p>
<p>Marite, impugning the credibility of every finalist was never my intention. Quite to the contrary, I mentioned in an earlier post that for every Blair or Kavvya, there are countless hard working or bona fide hyper achievers. </p>
<p>The heart of my argument is not to question the brilliance of the students who deserve many accolades outside from their participation in the Intel competition. My problem relates to the competition itself, its unleveled playing field, and its inherent weakness to REALLY scrutinize experiments that are well beyond the unchoreographed possibilities of teenagers. As you know, I have often decried the ever growing expectations of greatness placed on students as being utterly ridiculous. Despite reading the spirited defense presented in this thread, I find the arguments that the Intel competition does not reward access to fancy labs, willing mentors, or connections to be quite selective and lacking, especially when it comes to the full disclosure of the professional background and the role of the parents. </p>
<p>Heck, I blamed Louis a lot more than Blair!</p>
<p>I have absolutely no personal stake in this issue, so my feelings are not involved. I happen to have met some Intel finalists and they are truly impressive. </p>
<p>Frankly, given the valuable equipment, the deadlines, the money involved, it is a wonder that profs agree to mentor high schoolers at all. In fact, isn't the criticism of research universities that their profs are not focused on undergrads? And if they are not, then all the more reason to being unwilling to mentor high schoolers. no? So they must see something worth cultivating in these high schoolers, and that is not their own ego. They cannot know, when taking on the students, that the latter will win an Intel. But they can winnow out the no-hopers, the clueless, incompetent students who need not only handholding but also hovering over lest they ruin a valuable piece of equipment. Believe me, it is far easier to work on one's own or with a team of advanced graduate students than to hover a clueless staff who could wreck equipment worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Profs should be given credit for having the discernment to take on competent, passionate, knowledgeable high school students. I doubt that Aditi came across as clueless as she makes herself out to be when she asked to join the research group. It does not mean that the students should know everything going in, but that they have the capacity to learn quickly, to work fairly independently and to make connections when pointed in the right direction. </p>
<p>As for unfair advantage? Yes, life is unfair. Most finalists have well-educated supportive parents. If they are interested in the sciences, chances are they are close to some research university--something not all students interested in the sciences have. Maybe they have the connections to get them into the door whether through their parents, friends, or school. But this does not mean that the work is not their own.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Despite reading the spirited defense presented in this thread, I find the arguments that the Intel competition does not reward access to fancy labs, willing mentors, or connections to be quite selective and lacking, especially when it comes to the full disclosure of the professional background and the role of the parents.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cross-posted with Xiggi.
As you can see from the second part of my post, I agree that parents and access to labs are crucial to the success of most Intel finalists; I am sure that there are many other students who do not have this combination or familial background and access but could be equally successful if they had. But I am not persuaded that the finalists were assisted to such an extent that their success is not valid. What do profs gain by letting high schoolers take credit for work that was not done by the high schoolers themselves? Nothing, not even reflected glory. Does anyone know or care who Aditi's mentor was except other aspiring Intel competitors?</p>
<p>Marite, if there was indeed little personal gain for mentors going through the demands and risks of mentoring high schoolers, wouldn't this also intimate that the willing participants are indeed more prone to do it for the offspring of friends or business/academic contacts?</p>
<p>It could mean so, definitely. If you live far from major universities (even 25 miles might be a headache), and you do not have connections, your chances are greatly diminished. This is what I mean by life being unfair. In other cases, schools have arrangements with research universities. Ward Melville seems to have such an arrangement with Stony Brook. This does not mean, however, that individual profs will be willing to take on high school students just because they are nominated by their school. Ward Melville also has to be careful whom it nominates so that the connection with Stony Brook is not undermined by unsatisfactory interns. But I think the major incentive any prof has is to nurture talent. That is why Nobel prizes are willing to teach introductory classes when they could stay in their labs. I suspect it is far easier for high schoolers to gain entree into university labs than in industrial research labs for this very reason.</p>
<p>I am totally convinced that there are many finalists who are taking credit for work that was not completely done by the finalists themselves, as the article reveals. It's hard to argue with their own admissions. There are also finalists who are prodigious and have shown their brilliance, generally not by running track and playing flute in a city orchestra, but by participating in Math Olympiads, publishing papers in professional journals, finishing BC Calculus in 8th grade and taking four years of college math. These kids do Intel as an extracurricular activity...because it is their passion and one sees plenty of circumstantial evidence supporting that passion. I like evidence...must be the lawyer in me. When I see the varsity track runners, the flute players, the debaters, the ones taking AP Biology in junior year, yet decoding DNA in their spare time...ok, I need a little more convincing. I don't conclude that they are frauds, of course, but I would look at their projects a little more closely. Is it yet another achievement they wish to add to their full resumes, or is DNA really in their blood? In order to achieve an Intel-like competence in music, one must not only show exceptional talent, but one must also practice about three to four hours a day for YEARS....don't tell me some kids can become that kind of expert in science during a couple of summers. Not buying it.</p>
<p>Mastering science is not like becoming a proficient musician. It does not require endless practice. It does require a lot of work, however. The students don't decode DNA in their spare time. They probably rush to the lab the minute school lets out (which is why access and proximity are so important). And even if they already know tons of biology by junior year, they still need to take the AP class for their transcript. That bit does not bother me. And as I said, DNA is only a subfield of biology. There's plenty more to learn. </p>
<p>There is one area in which science and music are similar, however. Intel competitors may engage in the research for the sake of building a resume; but without the talent, they won't win at the competition. Music students can be pushed by their parents; they can practice until they bust; but without the talent, they will not shine at competitions. Granted, the musician must perform and prove that s/he has the talent, and Intel finalists only have their experiments and their write-ups. But to suggest that resume-building is what motivates them to spend all their spare time and their summers in labs is to do the majority an injustice.</p>
<p>Actually, there is one big difference between the two. In competitions, you can't bust in a single day - you have your props and materials. In music auditions, you have only ONE shot.</p>
<p>Simba, I am well aware that there are differences between the two. I am not talking about competitions as such, but about what it takes to be a scientist vs. being a musician. Even if you bomb on a particular day, you can still consider yourself to be a good musician.<br>
My S was in a minor math competition with two separate teams. The prize was $2,000 for each team winner. There was a 3-way tie for the prize in his team, so there was an extra question posed, this time with a buzzer. The person who won was the one fastest on the buzzer--which did not happen to be my S, even though he knew the answer. There went the $2,000 prize. The other team did not have such a tie, so S's friend got the prize without having to answer the extra question and be under time pressure. Did it make my S less knowledgeable about math since he did not win the prize? No, it just meant that he was slow with the buzzer.</p>
<p>It sounds to me, that, in most cases, what is going on is very, very valuable learning experiences. I don't begrudge the students these just because they have opportunities most student don't, anymore than I would think it was wrong for schools to offer APs like Calc BC, Euro History, World History, Econ, Psych, etc that were not offered at my kids' HS. Such is the nature of the world.</p>
<p>What i think still bothers me, and did from the beginning, is labelling these experiences as achievements, esp in the popular press (Student X was a finalist for curing cancer, redefining DNA, updating calculus, whatever, rather than Student X worked in a lab where they're doing that, helped with some aspects, and wrote lots of papers). </p>
<p>The descriptions of how much they learn from these experiences sound rich and rewarding in themselves. Like taking lessons from Yo Yo Ma would be--you would learn a lot, but even if he let you practice with him, you wouldn't be credited with the actual performance.</p>
<p>Again, true prodigies exist, and that subset might (and probably does) overlap with this one, but that overlap seems, in these accounts, rather tenuous.</p>
<p>Galrand:</p>
<p>Bad analogy. If you study with Yo Yo Ma (and a friend of my S actually does, :)) and your technique improves as a result, then you ARE credited with the actual performance. Let's face it, even Ma had to learn from someone. </p>
<p>It is possible that some of the finalists merely worked in labs where redefining DNA was done. I am more inclined than you to give them the benefit of the doubt as I truly do no see that the profs have to gain from letting students get credit for work that they themselves did (not the menial tasks, but the formulation of theory, interpretation of data, etc...). The story of the MIT prof who discouraged a young researcher from joining the MIT faculty is telling about the cut-throat nature of research. Profs don't earn more money, don't get more grants by mentoring high schoolers or even their own undergraduates. So they must see promise in these kids. And if they overestimate their promise, why, the kids don't make it to semi-finalist.</p>
<p>No, badly written analogy. I meant when one hear's Ma's performance.</p>
<p>Thanks to symphonymom for a great post #330.</p>
<p>Let's remember that among the population which frequents CC, there are many parents whose children are, or were, the cream of the crop at excellent high schools. We have witnessed exceptionally bright children grow up under our very own roof. We have seen them stand intellectually head and shoulders above their peers very early in life. Unfortunately, we have also experienced the critical comments from parents of average children--parents who due to their limited experience with ordinary kids--do not understand how our children are capable of the high level of work of which they are indeed capable. Out of ignorance, these folks insist that our children's work could not possibly be their own. Among CCers are parents who have been wrongly accused of doing our children's school projects or writing their essays. It hurts. I know because I am such a parent.</p>
<p>And for the very reason that I live with a highly gifted and involved kid like this, I feel confident challenging some of these stories. I would use the same criteria symphonymom outlined in her post. No matter how brilliant a child is or how little he sleeps, he is still limited by time and space. He has the same 24 hour days as everyone else in which to do and to learn. When I was more insecure as a parent, I used to be intimated by tales of these kids who seem to be able to do it all and do it all with excellence. But after asking many probing questions over the years of the students and their parents, I have learned that in many cases (though not all) you will discover a pattern of deception. As a small illustration, we know students at our HS who claim to be members of both sports teams and after school clubs. They may even be leaders. The only problem is, all our HS sports teams and clubs meet in the exact same time frame. So if the student is running track and also claims membership in the Spanish Club, he's actually not a full, committed participant in one, or the other, or both. When my son listed that he was on the cross-country and track teams, it meant he was at absolutely every practice and every meet, and for that reason he chose to forgo memberships in clubs whose meeting or activity schedule conflicted with that commitment. Regrettably, though, he was competing for spots in college with kids who claimed membership in those same teams as well as many clubs in addition. This also hurts.</p>
<p>By what mechanism do we catch the posers? We challenge and ask questions. We also speak honestly about what is, and what is not possible for a gifted child to accomplish, starting with our own children. So I'm here, like symphonymom, to tell you that doing a laundry list of diverse things with a high level of commitment and excellence in all of them is impossible to mere mortals.</p>
<p>When you read acknowledgments, you can see how someone helped with the research; a student might be thanked for doing library work, which may mean little more than fetching books and returning them; a step up might be to do a keyword search and locate the relevant works. But that student would not be listed as co-author. The same goes for science articles. If someone is listed as co-author, then that someone did more than wash petri dishes and other menial tasks. The order in which authors is listed gives a clue as to how important each was to the experiment. Interns may be thanked at the bottom of an article; they will not be listed as co-authors unless they truly made a contribution.</p>
<p>I'll add that in the non-scientific world, acknowledgements can be pretty deceptive. As a research assistant and law review editor in law school, there were a couple of occasions when I, alone or with other students, wrote nearly every word, and did substantially all the research, for pieces that were published under professors' names. My "able assistance" was duly acknowledged, but nothing more than that. I'm not complaining; that was the deal, and I got plenty of benefit out of my relationships with the professors. But "acknowledgement" does not always mean that the assistance was trivial. </p>
<p>(Just to be clear, in the two cases I'm remembering most precisely, the professors' contributions were extremely important. One was a substantial supplement to the professor's casebook, and he certainly read every word his assistants wrote and guaranteed the quality, even if his directions and editing were minimal. The other was an article that was unquestionably the professor's idea, and for which he completed a first draft himself. Very little of the first draft remained in the final version, but the core idea was still his, and the product was collaborative. He would have given me a co-author credit if I had asked, but that wouldn't have served either of our interests.)</p>
<p>What JHS says is very true. If anything, acknowledgments tend to underestimate the amount of assistance provided by the person being thanked. By the same token, being listed as a co-author is an acknowledgment that one really contributed a lot to the research and writing.</p>