<p>"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."</p>
<p>There is nothing to keep you from looking at their projects more closely. Please do -- because the posters on this thread who are familiar with the Intel/STS participants -- especially those mentioned in the original NYT article -- seem to have no problem with the integrity and talent of the winners. The full names of the students are publicly listed, along with their high school. If you like evidence, you may also like research...so finding these students isn't difficult. Check them out yourself! You can also contact the mentors. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there are usually two open sessions in March where you can meet the finalists -- without their mentors or parents being present -- and find out how deceptive they've been.</p>
<p>I'm still not sure why some posters continue to be so strongly attached to the "deception" and "unfair" advantages of Intel/STS participants. If you're a computer science major, and your Dad was Bill Gates roomate for his brief career at Harvard, it is unfair of you to contact Bill Gates to ask for an internship at Microsoft? If you start at Microsoft, and Bill decides to write all of your code for you, there's deception. But if Bill reviews the code you've written, and has some suggestions to make it better...or suggests another path that might be more efficient... does that make it Bill's work? And when you take the path he suggested...and add a few more twists...and you're not sure what you've got...but Bill tells you you're just figured out how allow for secure payments over the internet...does it mean you shouldn't be acknowledged for the work you did to get to that point?</p>
<p>Hi, 2boysima,
I have a question for you: do you think the kids in the NYT article were legitimate winners of Intel? If you do, I guess we can agree to disagree. If you do not, you've got to acknowledge that there is the possibility for abuse in the system...even with the open sessions....that's what makes Intel a creature different from other competitions.
In your Gates example, I do think one should be acknowledged for the work one did "to get to that point," but maybe not to the extent that one wins an Intel scholarship. I would ask the scientists out there whether, in your example, Gates would be listed first on a publication including the results or whether the cs major would be listed first.<br>
OK, to take this into a larger context...we have a world in which athletes are taking steroids to achieve superhuman results, shredders in Fortune 10 companies run 24 hours a day and my old classmate, Elliot Spitzer is off fighting the forces of evil because there are a lot to fight. It starts with our kids. I really don't care who wins Intel...in the end, the truly talented will emerge, whether they emerge as 17-year olds or 26-year olds...I do care, however, that we are putting so much pressure on our kids to win, win, win at every cost, that we are damaging our future as much as we are with global warming. As I've mentioned before, we're living in a society in which the ends justify the means...as long as you don't get caught. This is not acceptable to me. Integrity means a lot to me. It doesn't require splitting hairs in hypotheticals...if one thought up the research, did the research and presented the research, one deserves to win science fairs. Hopefully, one did the research to begin with because one was really interested in the answer...not in getting into a particular college.<br>
The problem starts when even ONE person cheats. All of a sudden, instead of high school kids presenting high school level research, they are presenting cutting edge cancer research. The cancer researchers win the competition. This puts pressure on the entire system...now everyone must scramble to find a cancer research lab and a mentor. Then the lines between doing the work and simply being present while the work is done begin to be blurred.
When my youngest was in second grade, he drew a picture of his family for Back To School Night. It was a typical stick figure scribbled picture which was completely age appropriate. He was very proud of his efforts. At his school, kids brought in photo shop collages and pictures which they could not have possibly drawn themselves. Some were even framed. The parents had intervened once again. My son was crestfallen and tried to hide his own creation. Even the TEACHER...who is supposed to know what second grade work looks like...gave him a poor grade because she said it looked as if he had "rushed." It had taken him hours. Ok, what is a parent supposed to do in that scenario? I think the Intel is taking on the same elements...the high school projects which are actually age appropriate are not cutting the mustard anymore...so parents, mentors and teachers are scrambling to become too involved. Yes, a kid might win Intel, get into Harvard and get a good job. But at what cost?</p>
<p>Symphonymom-- I agree with much of what you write. However, there are lots of places in the US that suffer from the opposite syndrome that you talk about. I live in a town where the self-esteem movement has taken hold.... it doesn't matter if your 8th grader doesn't know math.... just that he thinks he's good at math. Why have your kid bust her butt in HS to get into a good college when the GC, Principal, and Superintendent all went to state U (not a top ranked one) and did just fine?</p>
<p>I actually find it refreshing reading about these Intel kids. My town's HS has never, to my knowledge, had a kid compete. We are within a suburban train ride to Rockefeller, Columbia med school, NYU, plus various corporate pharma labs. Our HS kids are too busy selling candy bars to pay for prom and working at the Gap to pay their car insurance on the brand new jeep. Everyone has an I-Pod-- apparently, one doesn't listen to the radio anymore if one wants to hear music (radio is free, alas, and therefore without any status).</p>
<p>I don't have a POV on where to draw the line between legitimate mentoring and actual manipulating the results.... but I think it's remarkable that in our consumer oriented society which seems obsessed with sports, celebrity, and having a tan 12 months a year, there are HS kids who are motivated enough to seek out these opportunities.</p>
<p>{quote]In your Gates example, I do think one should be acknowledged for the work one did "to get to that point," but maybe not to the extent that one wins an Intel scholarship. I would ask the scientists out there whether, in your example, Gates would be listed first on a publication including the results or whether the cs major would be listed first.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think Gates'assistance would be acknowledged but the author would be the student. And if the student had stumbled on some major discovery, s/he should get an award.</p>
<p>People who are not involved in research seem to believe in the myth of the lone inventor. That does not happen whether in the humanities or in the sciences. A scholarly work in the humanities or social sciences is the fruit of endless conversations with colleagues that may trigger a new research direction, a new way of looking at the topic, delving into hitherto unfamiliar materials. The writing gets critiqued by others whether informally by friends or more formally by readers engaged for the purpose by the press, and revised at the suggestion of editors. But the only name that appears on the title page is that of the author, not the colleagues, not the readers, not the editors. All of the latter get thanked in the acknowledgments and footnotes. </p>
<p>In math and sciences, college students are positively encouraged to form study groups. A common scenario is for students to begin working on problems on their own, go to their study groups, share what they have come up with so far, try to solve the problems in the most elegant fashion possible, then go back to their dorms and write these up on their own. The problem sets that are graded are considered to be the individual work of each student even though it is known (and encouraged) that they tried to solve the problems in group.</p>
<p>Why should we hold high schoolers to higher standards than college students and established scholars?</p>
<p>In a sense I think the discussion is moot. Intel is many things but it is not what it was. And that's a GOOD thing.</p>
<p>Across the board, it is a mentor-based program. We all know that. No one is deluded. Kids deserve a lot of credit for working so hard with mentors. I am impressed! You would need to do a lot more convincing for me to believe this is proof of great genius. But it is evidence of hard work, and of the fact that a teen has been motivated to learn about science research.</p>
<p>It is in the spirit of science today, which is mentor-based, with every discovery another small step added to the larger whole. That is what we should want --to teach kids to take part in the process, not win a prize.</p>
<p>Why is this confusing or misleading? Is winning Intel today tantamount to being another Einstein? No one is making that claim. It is a wonderful though often, more modest accomplishment than in the past --but for the better or worse, the point is that it does more to teach about science as it is today than past competitions could. It is relevant to the world we inhabit now.</p>
<p>Science needs to be done this way now --and so does intel, if we want to teach these kids about doing science. As a learning experience it is perfect. It is a mentored project, just as science research is while Ph.D.'s are trained. </p>
<p>As a science contest --who the hell cares? It is the relevance and the process and the value-added to future scientists that is most important here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the Intel is taking on the same elements...the high school projects which are actually age appropriate are not cutting the mustard anymore..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is age-appropriate? Is doing AP-Calc in 8th grade age-appropriate? Of course not. But it is what some students have done, including Donemom's son. And from my own experience, there is absolutely no parental pushing needed. In fact, if anything, parents may be the ones urging the students to stop reading and go to bed; take time off from thinking about problems and go out and play, etc... Competitions seldomg reward what is "age-appropriate" which is a variation on what is the norm., what is ordinary They reward those who are extraordinary, whether in the arts, sports, or scholarship.</p>
<p>I think before one decides what a"mere mortal" can do with his/her time, you should look closely at a student's accomplishments. You can't fake SAT scores. You can't fake winning national circuit debate tournaments or fake national debate rankings. You can't fake yearly USTA tennis rankings. You can't fake acceptance into select state or regional orchestras. And you wouldn't be allowed to be first author on a science publication unless you had substantial ownership of the work and wrote the thing.</p>
<p>Read about some of the USA Today first team winners. It is simply mind boggling what they do with the same 24 hour day that we all share.</p>
<p>Blossom...We used to have the self-esteem movement here...2+2=5 if it makes you feel good about yourself. Not good either:) Now, I live in one of the craziest places in the US...but the weather is good.
Marite...that's what Intel is SUPPOSED to do..award the extraordinary. I think this thread exposes some who win by other means.
Donemom...I agree with what you say...except maybe for USTA tennis rankings...one of my friends whose kids are on the circuit is muttering something about European professionals coming here as amateurs and getting college scholarships. Don't know from my own experience, but my ears are open to the possibilities....
Bottom line...we SHOULD acknowledge and recognize the truly worthy...and make sure the processes are fair enough to identify who they are and distinguish them from...I think someone called them the "posers."
There are kids who can do it all...then there are kids who fake it. I know a Math Olympiad finalist whose mom recorded his college piano tape (told you I lived in a warped part of the world). He said he won a regional concerto competition. He didn't. He had participated in one years earlier and then quit music to focus on math. He certainly had enough on his application without faking any qualifications. He wasn't caught. I'd just like to see the ones who truly deserve recognition receive their due...and the others who cheat receive theirs....I'm not saying there aren't any extraordinary kids out there...and parents of extraordinary kids should be the ones particularly upset at the "posers."</p>
<p>"Do you think the kids in the NYT article were legitimate winners of Intel? If you do, I guess we can agree to disagree." </p>
<p>Yes..we'll have to agree to disagree. Based on the quotes from the article on this thread (I haven't been able to access the whole article...but the quotes used on this thread seem to cover the topics that most people had an issue with), other input on this thread about science research and relationships of mentors with students, along with input on this thread from those who know the specific students and projects cited in the article, I think the kids were legitimate winners.</p>
<p>"National finalists in the [Intel] Science Talent Search in March and in the International Science and Engineering Fair in May include some winners from rural communities, even though many people have the idea that success in science competition requires an urban location with access to working scientists. True, a large number of the winners come from [Long Island], for instance, but this does not shut out some youthful scientists from remote locations." ..... "Michael XXXX, whose mail reaches him at a P. O. Box at Edgewood, New Mexico, credited his school as 'great' in permitting him to take the bus to Albuquerque to conduct experiments with cloned DNA in the lab of a working scientist in the city."</p>
<p>Does this quote sound like a response to some of the complaints heard on this thread about "advantage" and the current Intel/STS competition? (Note the reference to cloned DNA!!!) In the original quote, the words in the first bracket were "Westinghouse". The words in the second bracket were "New York City"...which is where a large number of the semi-finalists and finalist used to come from (due to strong research programs at the NYC admission-based public high schools like Sty. and Bronx HS of Science.) The article is from a 1984 issue of American Education. </p>
<p>There's always been some kind of geographic, economic, science-parent advantage to this competition. It's an advantage, but it's not unfair or dishonest. And the research reported by the vast majority of participants, resulting from very typical mentor/student relationships, is not deceitful.</p>
<p>Our elite institutions of higher education are fast becoming finishing schools for students who have a "pedigree" of sorts. To gain admission, they must have demonstrated accomplishments more numerous than the vast majority of adults may boast after a lifetime of days. It is almost as if these kids are a "finished product" who lack only the stamp form Harvard, Yale, or Princeton to complete them. Look at the Princeton forum for examples of '10s who have done amazing things--achievements that are perhaps the natural outgrowth of superior intelligence, initiative, diligence and opportunity.</p>
<p>But while they were busy being miniature adults, what "work" of childhood was neglected? This is a dangerous trend.</p>
<p>Your post contains references to different things. Award winners are not necessarily more (or less) ethical than others, nor are their parents. But the fact that the Math Olympiad finalist's mom receorded his college piano tape is irrelevant to his desering to be a Math Olympiad finalist--unless you think that an imposter could have done the problems in public in his place? However, it could be relevant to his being admitted to college. But that is a separate issue.</p>
<p>I am still unconvinced that the students profiled did not deserve to win awards. I think posters totally misunderstand the nature of research, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries.</p>
<p>Marite...I truly am astonished by your reaction...but maybe I shouldn't be or perhaps I've misunderstood you. I SAID that the Math Olympiad finalist did not NEED to add anything to his resume. Of course he did his own math. But he DID submit a fraudulent tape...How you can call blatant cheating "irrelevant" is further evidence of the growing problem in our society. But there are many parents who evidently really do not see it as a problem...and who are willing to roll deception in whatever sugar coating suits their purposes.</p>
<p>The GFG:
As the parent of a student who has been in classes with some of these "pedigree" students, I disagree strongly your statement that "it's as
if these kids are a "finished product" who lack only the stamp form Harvard, Yale, or Princeton to complete them." They still have a lot to learn, including in their field of interest. And they do not attend HYP for the sake of getting a stamp. It's insulting to say so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But while they were busy being miniature adults, what "work" of childhood was neglected? This is a dangerous trend.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you mean "work" of childhood? There is no one-size fit all trajectory. One person's idea of fun is another person's idea of boring. Have you gone to the last days of academic camps where students studied challenging subjects all day long six days a week? I have. And I have seen students cry their eyes out because it was over for the year. That is their idea of an ideal childhood. Why should they be expected to be like other kids when they are not like other kids? </p>
<p>Why is it that academically inclined kids are somehow portrayed as freakish, over-pressured, deprived of a proper childhood, but not others? Now, shall I start a thread decrying the lost childhood of student athletes or budding artists?</p>
<p>Could you please read my post carefully before criticiizing me? I said that the tape was irrelevant to his Math Olympiad performance not to his college admission.</p>
<p>Marite...even those kids need to play...we didn't have "academic camps" when I grew up. Boy, what we missed...My sister is a MD/PhD at a major university with her own lab...she's won lots of awards, grants, ets. I asked her whether she would have liked to get started any earlier...she said "are you crazy? There's a time to be a kid and a time to be an adult. Once childhood is over, it's OVER." Kids only hear about academic camps from their parents. My husband and his best friend read medical books during the summers on their own, biked out to the lake to fish and discussed how to cure cancer. They were not bored. They were not crying because an academic camp was over. If there are kids crying because academic camp is over, it is sad in many many ways.</p>
<p>Also, Marite...I really am not criticizing you in any way...just discussing the issues...I'm sorry if you thought it was criticism...it really was not meant that way at all.</p>
<p>Well, I don't know how to interpret your post other than as a criticism, however politely couched.</p>
<p>As for students attending academic camps, your attitude is definitely judgmental. What makes you the arbiter of how kids should spend their time? I personally don't care if some kids spend their whole summer practising music or football, or whatever. I expect that those who practise music will perform better than those who do not, and some of them may be good enough to win competitions. The same goes for sports; the same goes for academic camps. For some students the school year is just make-time until the summer when they can really enjoy themselves because they are intellectually challenged. If you can't understand that, then it's too bad.</p>
<p>My son is employed in a lab this summer. The job was advertised as a position for someone with more education and experience, but he landed it anyway. He is setting up equipment, running tests, recording results, etc. He learns quickly, and is both responsible and hardworking. His boss is very pleased with his output and wishes he could hire him full-time. My son is working alongside adults with years of experience and advanced degrees. On any given day if you were to walk into the lab, you might not notice a large difference between what my son is doing and what the senior people around him are doing. After all, research and other lab work involves a lot of repetitive testing. But underneath the surface there is a world of difference between him and the adults. Their background and experience gives them the ability to know how to respond to different work assignments in order to achieve particular research goals. When my son leaves to go off to college, they will carry the work just fine without him. If they were all to leave the lab tomorrow, my son could finish what he had been taught to do, but after that he would be lost.</p>