<p>Can we also remember for a second the gap between publicity and reality? I've already praised the successful Intel competitors I've met -- I really think they are extraordinary kids. But, I'll tell you, they are not quite as good as their press. On occasion, they can be perfectly awful teenage you-know-whats. The guy who was class president, too, was a pretty lousy class president (although a really skilled public speaker). They work hard, but usually they know how to make a little work go a long way if they choose. They ARE careerists, not monastic devotees of pure knowledge. Their research -- being real research -- generally represents an incremental advance on a well-structured path, not a potential paradigm shift. None of them has, in fact, cured cancer.</p>
<p>We all love heroes. The kids get written up and promoted, by Intel and the press, as if they were superhuman paragons. They aren't that, probably not even Donemom's son. That's part of what's causing the resentment here -- the sense that these kids are getting benefits disproportionate to their merit, even if they haven't "cheated". And maybe that's true, but that's what happens with contests. Anyone want to tell me that Reuben Studdard or Taylor Whateverhisnameis is really his idol?</p>
<p>I really don't mean to be judgmental with respect to any issue other than cheating. If kids want to go to academic camp, they should, by all means, go. I was just hoping to extend the thoughts that the work of childhood was being neglected. I certainly do not want to be the arbiter of how anyone spends his time...look how much time I'm spending here:)</p>
<p>Your son is doing what hundreds , possilby thousands of interns, whether paid or unpaid and research assistants are expected to do. They are useful to the researchers and they get to learn something along the way. But there are many who take on internships with the idea of doing an experiment and some researchers are willing to take them on. There are lots of mentoring programs out there, set up to do just that.</p>
<p>The GFG:
The difference between what your son is doing, and what most high school students do who are working towards an Intel/STS project, is that their work is not just employment. (In most cases, they don't get paid for the research they're doing.) Most of them are not filling a position. They are reviewing what they do and their results with a mentor -- not a boss.</p>
<p>Will the labs they are in cease to function when they leave and will the research they were doing be discontinued? In most cases, no. But you will find that many of them have made a contribution to the area they have studied...often similar to the work of a graduate student...and many of them continue their research when they go to college.</p>
<p>And what on earth is the work of childhood, please? Why is wanting to study math or science or Constitutional Law not the work of childhood? Is playing the piano five hours a day the work of childhood? Is playing a sports in 100deg weather the work of childhood? Or do we reserve this for vegging out in front of the TV or playing video games?</p>
<p>Again, I think it's fabulous we can debate the work of childhood. In my 'hood it seems to involve getting Norplant as early as possible so as to have as many sex partners as possible by age 18; having really really good hair (however defined), and shopping at Abercrombie and text messaging your friends on your cellphone. I think you folks who get riled up over someone "cheating" via Intel should look out over the rest of the US and wonder why so many teenagers are being left behind. Your concern is over a microscopic segment of the truly elites....and I live in a middle class neighborhood, so I'm not even talking about the issues facing the teenagers who grow up in disadvantaged surroundings.</p>
<p>"Their research -- being real research -- generally represents an incremental advance on a well-structured path, not a potential paradigm shift. None of them has, in fact, cured cancer."</p>
<p>In fact, you may be correct that none of their specific projects is a cure for cancer, but at least one project this year may be used in identifying a cure for retinoblastoma, a pediatric eye cancer.</p>
<p>Eric Lander, the 1974 winner of the competition, is a co-founder of the Human Genome project. I guess he hasn't cured cancer yet, but he's done a lot to help others get there!</p>
<p>Blossom...great points...the title of the thread sort of explains why the folks discussing these issues are riled up, but as you point out, there are bigger fish to fry.</p>
<p>Quote: "Their (Intel kids) research -- being real research -- generally represents an incremental advance on a well-structured path, not a potential paradigm shift. None of them has, in fact, cured cancer."</p>
<p>This is true for virtually all research...this remark indicates, as Marite says, a lack of understanding how scientific research at all levels works nowadays.
No one is "curing cancer", as if cancer is one single thing. My son is currently working in an oncology lab, and believe me, every study is looking at some tiny, incremental aspect that contributes to a huge puzzle. But that in no way diminishes the importance of these incremental steps.</p>
<p>A PROJECT, that is a group effort, and that is great, but most likely that research was underway when the contestent started doing research</p>
<p>Blossom, your points are good ones. The reasoon I get so uppity about the exclusivity, the resources, the $$, the time given to so few, is that so many have nothing</p>
<p>To have a contest that helps so few, when you could take those same mentors, many who seem to truly want to help kids, and put them in the classroom, opened the labs to more kids on a shorter term basis to teach the fundamentals and to open new worlds</p>
<p>And when you have truly interested passionate kids who have little resources and you so much going to so few, yes, it is irratating to me</p>
<p>This is a micro-segment of the truly elite, who often use public resources, college labs, etc., for a small group of often already privelaged</p>
<p>Why not spread the energy and people around a bit more, so that more kids could have at least some of the experiences</p>
<p>Bigger fish to fry, of course, to see so much GIVEN to so few, that is an eternal issue involving kids that is not getting better</p>
<p>Okay, let me summarize some of the arguments that have been presented.
1. the projects are so advanced that it is impossible for high schoolers to do them on their own, ergo, they must have benefitted from huge amounts of help from profs, and therefore they do not deserve to be awarded an Intel/STS.
2. The projects are really not terribly important, they are part of larger projects, they do not amount to discovering the cure for cancer, therefore the kids do not deserve to be awarded an Intel/STS.
3. The kids are unfairly benefitting from connections and access to labs and other resources. They are not as smart as they are made out to be, they should not be singled out by Intel/STS.
4. The kids are probably glorified gofers who are interested mainly in padding their resumes. They are not contributing a lot to the projects. They do not deserve to be awarded an Intel/STS.
5. The kids are working much much too hard. What's wrong with them? They are depriving themselves of their childhood. Get them out of those labs.</p>
<p>its all of them, you have some #5s who are really doing good work, you probably have some #2s, kids learning, but being guided mostly, you have some # 3 aqnd 4s, who show up, do things cause it looks good (we see posters like that on this site all the time), you have a few #1s, kids who "help" but the work is probably really steered by mentors..</p>
<p>It is not any one thing, its a mix, and because of that mix, questions arise and the cudos received by SOME kids is earned, while for others, not so much</p>
<p>What does it take to develop a research scientist? Usually about 4 years of undergrad, 4-6 years of doctoral training and a few more years of postdoctoral research experience; i.e., something like 10-12 years. Isn't it great that some high school kids demonstrate such advanced knowledge and skills?</p>
<p>When I was in college, a really famous prof suggested to a classmate of mine that her term paper was so excellent that it could be published in a major scholarly jounral with just a little revision. We were sophomores then. Every once in a while, profs encounter situations such as these. </p>
<p>The kids are not yet "research scientists." They happen to be bright kids who have focused on a very specific problem/experiment.</p>
<p>The work of childhood is to learn to obey your parents, to respect those in authority, to understand your family's values, to get along peacably with your siblings, to play fairly with friends, to learn to contribute to the well-being of a group, to realize you are only one of many who have needs and wants, and to win and lose with humility. It's to lie on your back and gaze at the stars and contemplate who you are in the vast universe. It's to turn over rocks and skip pebbles. It's to blow bubbles and splash in puddles. It's many, many things which here in the northeast parents are beginning to squeeze out of their children's schedule. </p>
<p>In my town, there are now many children who rarely, if ever, are allowed outside to just play. On a recent elementary school field trip I was stunned that many "smart" kids lacked sufficient physical endurance to walk around a large miniature golf course (they told me they don't usually walk that much.) When homework is done there's Kumon and other enrichment worksheets to be done, there are private lessons and tutoring sessions. For others, there are organized sports practices and travel team games to be attended at an hour or more distance from home. There are 4 years olds whose parents are training them in some athletic endeavor every morning at 5:30 AM. (Just drive by our HS tennis courts!) I've seen parents making their children take workbooks to the playground and do math problems before they ride the swings. A speakers came to our high school to discuss college admission strategies and suggested cutting out family dinners in order to find an extra half and hour each day to do more clubs. It is now considered wiser to help strangers than family members, because for the former you can earn volunteer hours. </p>
<p>My son is a high achiever whose bio. approximates the ones we're discussing. I understand and accept that there are different strokes for different folks. For some it will be science camp. Does that make them freaks? Like it or not, some people will think so and they are probably in the majority in places outside our bastion of achievement mania. Was it normal for my four year old son to closely follow the events in the Gulf War? No, not in the opinion of friends and teachers who worried I was encouraging a morbid preoccupation. Oh, I am NOT lamenting the time my bright son has missed playing with a Game boy, watching mind-numbing shows on TV, or manning MySpace. By the grace of God his social skills are good and I do believe that involvement in sports has helped him avoid too much outward nerdiness. But has he missed out on childhood in other ways? Yes. He abandoned most types if play once he learned to read. I'm not sure he understands the concept of "hanging out." His brain, while normal, is so wired to incorporate facts and literal information that there is little room for processing his own emotions. Growing up in the hyper-competitive environment in our area probably eliminated some helpful social counter-balances which would have made a difference. </p>
<p>When our HS honored the National Merit Scholars, I was able to meet his classmates. I heard these "smart" kids peak publicly as well as one-on-one. As bright as they may be, I assure you that they would have benefitted from less time studying and more time learning to relate normally to others. This was confirmed on graduation day, when the valedictorian showed that he does not at all understand the majority of his classmates and what makes them tick. But by golly he mastered mutivariable calculus as a sophomore! No, not all smart kids are weird. Some are the most well-adjusted people you've ever met. These are the ones for whom Intel and similar activities suit their intellect and temperament. But our society is creating some Frankensteins too.</p>
<p>GFG-- I have an easy answer for you. Have any of these "freakish" kids spend a summer flipping burgers or stocking shelves at Walmart or emptying bedpans as a nurses aid at a local nursing home. </p>
<p>Nothing like a minimum wage job, especially one that requires wearing a dorky uniform, to knock some social skills into an awkward kid.</p>
<p>There are times when I think folks on CC live in an alternative universe. Or is it just me?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some are the most well-adjusted people you've ever met. These are the ones for whom Intel and similar activities suit their intellect and temperament.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, I don't understand why the earlier lament that kids who invest their time and passion into doing Intel-caliber projects are missing "the work of childhood." It seems your kid is well-adjusted; as is mine. So my kid looked up at stars; but having done so, he tried to learn all he could about them. He skipped pebbles and wanted to know why they skipped. When kids are very young they constantly ask "Why?" and "How come?" Parents who don't know the answers often get exasperated and tell their kids to stop asking questions. But there are some who nurture their kids love of learning; if they don't know answers, they try to look them up with their kids. Remember that any number of people have sat below apple trees , but only Newton asked what made apples fall because his mind was not on idle as he did. But no one pressured him to ask the question. The fact is that scientists are more like the wide-eyed children who are always asking why than the bored kids of our middle schools who have been conditioned to think of learning as a form of punishment at worst and at best something akin to eating your spinach: good for you but oh, so yucky. </p>
<p>Sure there are parents who think that they can get their Joe or Jane into HYP by keeping their nose to the grindstone. But Joe and Jane, unless they have their own inner drive to learn and some innate ability to master relevant knowledge, are not going to be Intel finalists or get their history essay published in the Concord Revew. </p>
<p>Frankly, as Blossom suggested, the concern over the well-being of high-achieving kids is misplaced. So the valedictorian in your son's class lacked social skills. Well, one classmate of my S in 6th grade was recently shot pointblank as he was sitting in his car. Apparently, it was a gang murder. Last year, he was arrested for drug dealing and illegal possession of weapons. At 19, he had a 2 year-old daughter. Believe me, he was not anywhere near being an NMS. As to his social skills? He was a bully even as a 12-year old. Unfortunately, there are more kids out there whose childhood resembles that of this dead 19 year old than of the Intel finalists.</p>
<p>And there are some kids who have a busy schedule, not because their parents push them, but because they beg for it. And ignore their parents when they beg for them to quit one or two activities.</p>
<p>I remember thinking, when my son was in 9th or 10th grade, that he was spreading himself so thin that he would either burn out, or that he would truly be the jack of all trades, master of none. But he had so many interests, and refused to stop pursuing all of them in order to try to shine in just a couple (or to just get more rest!). So I gave up, and just chauffered him to all the places he needed to be, paid for the various lessons, judged at the tournaments where I had to, and worried constantly that he was under stress. But he was competely happy, and still talks about his high school experiences with enormous satisfaction.</p>
<p>"So, I don't understand why the earlier lament that kids who invest their time and passion into doing Intel-caliber projects are missing "the work of childhood."</p>
<p>The point is that Isaac Newtons are very rare--a fact missed by all those parents who push their child to be a Newton when he's not, or to be a Newton at age 10 instead of growing into one at age 30. What's the rush? A teenager beating out an experienced PhD researcher is the stuff of a good newspaper article. But is it the stuff of an emotionally satisfied and fulfilling life, or does it mean the kid has become so alienated from his peers that he doesn't understand them nor can he make himself understood by them? Does it mean he won't bring himself to go to the official high school graduation party that ALL the seniors attend because he realizes he has no relationship at all with any of the people with whom he spent 12 years of his life? If you think the latter is desirable, then we'll have to agree to disagree. </p>
<p>Remember the hot thread a while ago about the lifetime advantages of an Ivy education? Re-read the section about how HYPS folks fare in the midwest. The CC world and the hyper-competitive enclaves of the northeast and LA area are only a small part of this great country.</p>