An honest look at how Intel Finalists get there

Parents Forum
21

<p>
[quote]
I think it was last year's Nobel prize winner, a distinguished professor at MIT, who commented that he was a pygmie standing on the shoulders of giants. ALL science relies heavily on the apprentice system.... what's the news here???

[/quote]

While I agree with you Blossom, and with others who have expressed similar sentiments, there is one difference here: HUGE scholarships, often full tuition, based on completely unequal access.</p>

<p>There seems (seems??!!) to be something inherently unfair here - NOT that the students love science, work hard at it, etc. - that's wonderful - but that they essentially get large scholarships based on something that it would be absolutely impossible for them to accomplish on their own. </p>

<p>We hear complaints very often on this board that certain students have access to SAT prep courses, special summer programs, etc., and that's why adcoms look at kids from affluent suburban districts with a jaundiced eye. But this goes so FAR beyond anything like that.</p>

<p>The first quote from the OP was astonishing - that the student couldn't even come up with ANYTHING alone!</p>

<p>This is the FIRST TIME I have EVER read of one of these students saying the dirty little truth. I think that the Emperor is wearing no clothes and someone has finally pointed it out. It has been ** dishonest** in my mind for these students to pass off the work as their own. </p>

<p>At the very least:
* I believe that there should be full disclosure on these projects - that they should be listed as joint projects - with the student's name second, not first - with the mentor, and that there should be an acknowledgement if multi-million dollar lab equipment was use. *</p>

<p>[edit]Blossom, you posted again after I did. The news here (re: skating) is that the skater is trained by others, then does the skating on his or her own, with help. This is entirely different. As the article clearly says, every single step is "overseen" by the mentor. It's not just that there "happened" to be a lab down the street, as there happens to be a rink or a mom willing to drive to one. If you read one of these projects, you'l see the difference in a heartbeat. I think the analogy is too weak. But I do understand it, and it is a point worth thinking about.</p>

22

<p>Chocoholic,</p>

<p>"should students work with award winning journalists and authors to produce admission-winning college essays? It takes a lot of initiative, research and drive to find one who will work with you."</p>

<p>This was perfect! Great analogy!</p>

<p>We thought highschool work was highschool work, and independent thinking and effort was what it says it is. </p>

<p>University work is University work.</p>

23

<p>Pro Athletes cannot play their sport while enrolled in college for obvious reasons--it's a similar concept IMHO.</p>

24

<p>In one case you have access, in other you are spoon fed.</p>

25

<p>You are right blossom, and the skiing analogy appears much more apt than the journalist analogy above. </p>

<p>After reading the article, I'd note that WM's success cannot be primarily about proximity. For example, if that was the case, you's expect Cold Spring Harbor High School to do much better because of it's proximity to Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories. Further afield, you'd expect to see numerous winners from Palo Alto High School, or from high schools in Boston. The fact that this is not the case leads me to believe that the largest factor is that the students are motivated and inspired by their older classmates, that the parents are willing to be involved and drive them to labs, and that WM students are told where to look for opportunities. </p>

<p>That said, it's not an exclusive club. For example, Aditi and I were in the same program at Stony Brook. The program drew several Ward Melville students, but also students from Texas, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Ward Melville Students have done research in the midwest and in New York City. Yes, proximity is helpful, but not necessary.</p>

<p>The greatest factor, and one that I think the NYT completely missed, is exposure. WM students are exposed to the idea that doing science research in high school is not only an option, but a great idea. There is a level of peer pressure to do science research at WM. Junior high students see the winners every year on the cover of the local newspaper, and think "I could do that too." That's why WM does well, I think.</p>

<p>PS. Neal (the guy in the NYT article) is seriously gifted in math - don't think these private tutorials were about anything other than upper-level college or graduate level math. I worry that the article make VERY VERY smart kids seem less intelligent, and it's simply not true.</p>

<p>Voronwe - we crossed posts, but I wanted you to know that the papers submitted to Intel make it quite explicit when mentors were involved and what equipment was used. They make their judgements based on this, as well as a statement from the mentor explaining the role the mentor played.
I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say "There seems (seems??!!) to be something inherently unfair here - NOT that the students love science, work hard at it, etc. - that's wonderful - but that they essentially get large scholarships based on something that it would be absolutely impossible for them to accomplish on their own."
How again is this different from great athletes, musicians, etc.?</p>

26

<p>"I worry that the article make VERY VERY smart kids seem less intelligent, and it's simply not true"</p>

<p>It does no such thing. It only makes the case that these super stars may not be what they are if they were not given help.</p>

27

<p>I think you guys are blowing this way out of context here. </p>

<p>When the girl admitted that she 'knew nothing' about her project, I read it as being modest, not her telling the "dirty little truth". I honestly dont' believe a person that can't speak intelligently about his or her project would be capable of winning the Intel award.</p>

<p>Second of all, the students are not passing off this work as solely their own. The PI's of the labs they work with aren't just having a little fun by allowing highschoolers to dabble in their lab equipment. They are hoping to find publishable data from it, for the credit of their own lab. Thus when a kid posts their project, their mentors name is doubtlessly on it as well. </p>

<p>Additionally, although these kids were not capable of doing the research that they did when they began, they certainly are capable of doing it now. They've already done it! They are doing university level work as high schoolers. That's definitely something to be acknowledged and awarded.</p>

<p>Is it unfair? A little bit, but as some other poster has already mentioned, there are thousands of universities across the nation, and almost all of them have research labs. If the kid has the initiative to go out and find the lab/mentor AND do the work, then I think they are deserving of the prize. </p>

<p>Finally, slightly off-topic, voronwe, I don't think adcoms really look at students coming from rich suburbia with a 'jaundiced eye'. A high SAT score is a high SAT score. And the experiences gained from those summer camps prepare them better for the rigors that are ahead. In choosing them, the adcoms aren't being discriminating, but are choosing the stronger candidates, regardless of whether or not they are from rich suburbia. </p>

<p>By the way, I'm not a past Intel winner or anything like that. I just appreciate their efforts and respect the fact that they accomplished something that I was incapable of doing as a highschooler.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
I wanted you to know that the papers submitted to Intel make it quite explicit when mentors were involved and what equipment was used. They make their judgements based on this, as well as a statement from the mentor explaining the role the mentor played.

[/quote]

That's good to know about Intel, anyway, Jenskate. As Woodwork pointed out, though, and as I know from my own state science fairs, Intel seems to be an exception that proves the rule.</p>

<p>I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the analogies, though. Atheletes and musicians finally have to perform entirely on their own. There is NO analagous performance in a science fair, where the very content itself, as well as the presentation and paper, has been done hand-in-hand with the mentor. At the most, the student might have to do a little explaining after the fact.</p>

29

<p>Just read jenskate's post, I agree with her 100%. I also had the same feeling that the article was discrediting the abilities of the kids.</p>

30

<p>chyln - "jaundiced eye" may have been a bit strong, but after nearly two decades working closely with admissions people, including interviewing for an Ivy, I was struck but how (as we discussed on another thread) the BWRK from the suburbs - who is not first generation - has to do so much MORE to stand out than any other demographic, bar none.</p>

31

<p>Agree with you about the analogies, Voronwe. when Soozie's D goes down the slope, she's going down alone.</p>

<p>And furthermore, if 12 kids from the school she learned to ski at simultaneously made it to the Junior Olympics, I'd find that a little suspect, too.</p>

32

<p>There IS an analogous performance in a science fair. Your mentor isn't there when the judges come around at the fair for Intel finalists, or at ISEF, Long Island Science and Engineering Fair, Long Island Science Congress, etc. They ask you all about your research and you had better know what you are talking about. </p>

<p>I once presented research on platelets at Long Island Science Congress, it's a small science fair, but I was questioned extensively by a hematologist - you bet I was glad I knew the answers!</p>

<p>Garland - Re: "If 12 kids...I'd be suspect...."
That happens ALL the time in athletics - look at University of Delaware Figure Skating Club, or Bela Karolyi's gymnasts - numerous examples!</p>

33

<p>Soozie's daughter has accomplished her feats by hard work, practice, and paid trainers; I assume that she skis downhill by herself? Now if she had hired Melanie Turgeon to ski, disguised in her clothes......I might object.</p>

<p>For posters who are comparing SATs, workplace, etc....
Those who take SAT classes are still taking a brand new unknown test on their own. Those who get mentored in the workplace are being trained for the benefit of the corpn. </p>

<p>Remember this from 2002?

[quote]
Finally, Weve Caught Hendrik'
- Compiled By David Mcmullin</p>

<p>Fraud Scam Gives Physics Its Own 9</p>

<p>In his glory days, Jan Hendrik Schön published one scientific paper a week. Last week, he was found guilty of fraud.</p>

<p>Nanotechnology's coming man, they called him. Jan Hendrik Schön won one scholarship after another, publishing a large number of important breakthroughs in the research field of organic molecules (polymers) behaving as conductors and transistors. Schön seemed headed straight for the Nobel Prize. Until last week.</p>

<p>A research committee at Bell Laboratories, where Schön worked, concluded that 16 of the 25 scientific papers they investigated were fabricated, and a further six papers of Schön%s were deemed suspicious.</p>

<p>The blow is numbing. Schön gave experimental physics its own September 11th, Delft Nanoscience professor Teun Klapwijk told the Dutch press earlier this week. Physicist David Goodstein of Caltech, an authority on research ethics, agreed. %Sin in the form of faking scientific data seemed to be reserved to biology and related sciences, not physics", he writes in a yet to be published commentary.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Standing on the shoulders of giants?</p>

34

<p>i would say that competition in general to stand out is becoming extremely fierce. Unless you are an URM, there is a lot you must do to stand out, as exhibited by the virtual lottery nature of getting accepted into the Ivies. The BWRK isn't the only demographic that has it tough, they still constitute the majority at many of the more prestigious universites. Asian Americans, for example, also have it extremely tough.</p>

35

<p>Actually it was a news item:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j34/2312%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/archief/j34/2312&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

36

<p>Oh, Chocoholic - it's not the same at all! These students DID the legwork, they read the literature, they wrote the papers - there is nothing fabricated here!</p>

<p>"Those who get mentored in the workplace are mentored for the benefit of the coroporation." True, I totally agree. And those who get mentored in the science labs are mentored for the benefit to the lab (grants) and to the scientific community (70% of intel finalists become doctors or scientists).</p>

37

<p>I dont' really agree with the analogies, as none of them really match the situation al that much. </p>

<p>But, as Jenskate said, when they are up there giving their presentations and answering questions about their research, they're skiing alone and it's a whole blank new test that no amount of prep work can prepare them for. This is the true trial of alltheir work: the poster presentation and the questions that come with it.</p>

38

<p>This thread is an eye-opener for me. Good arguments on both sides: most scientific research conducted by undergrad and even grad students depends heavily on a professorial mentor and sophisticated equipment, (though if a scientific paper results the Professor's name usually goes first). So in that respect these Intel projects are similar. Still, somehow, in my ignorance, I had just assumed that these were original projects by budding Einsteins.</p>

39

<p>Having read the article, it only reinforces what we have learned anecdotally from people at the NJ science fair.</p>

<p>How can anyone think that a student who is micro-managed--even in choosing what project they will do and if the proper grad students will be available to guide them through a project it has been predetermined by the grads students/professor that they will be able to accomplish with their generous help--to a high-school fault, fairly competes with the 99% of the other science students in the USA who have only the resources, it is assumed, high-schools supply.</p>

<p>Moreover, it is not as if universities are available to students all over the USA. The article clearly states that the (well-to-do) school itself has created the relationship, the kids are then guided into the system already provided for them by their administration—where’s the special initiative on the part of the student?</p>

<p>Of course the work they are doing, and the experience they are having is not to be demeaned—it’s a great opportunity not to be missed if you have access to it. There is nothing wrong with students taking advantage of this opportunity; I would hope most parents would encourage their kids to take up this challenge/opportunity.</p>

<p>But who can say with a straight face that research done under these circumstances competes fairly with 99% of the science loving kids in America who enter these competitions thinking they have a fair shot at winning a dream award through hard work and effort: IMHO, no one.</p>

40

<p>Idler:</p>

<p>Small, nitpicky detail. In most science papers, at least in the biological sciences, the PI's name comes last. First author is reserved for the person that contributes the most, physically and mentally to the project.</p>