An honest look at how Intel Finalists get there

Parents Forum
381

<p>Marite: How do you do this "Quote" which comes out as different looking? Could you please tell me?</p>

<p>Blossom:
"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>I agree with you that it is good to learn social skills but as donemom said that most of the time kids choose to do what they want. Social skills can be learned in so many places when other than working. Volunteer work can have lot more benefits and skills learning through girl or boys scouting allows to one to interact with other kids and rely on team work and so forth and so on. So there are many ways people can learn outside the classroom. Different people acquire different skills through multiple ways. Bottom line if kid is happy what they choose to do, they would be doing it. No matter whatever parents wish, in long term basis kid would drop activities that kids are pushed and have no interests.</p>

382

<p>I think one of my prior arguments was misinterpreted. When I said that the winning projects were incremental research, and that none of the Intel-winning kids had "cured cancer", I was not at all suggesting that they were not valid winning projects. </p>

<p>I was addressing what I thought was a source of resentment and misperception in people's reactions to the issues we have been discussing. The logic would go: The winners are presented to the public as superhuman. They are not really superhuman. Therefore, they must have had illegitimate help, or they are freaks who are damaged in some countervailing way, or they are being rewarded disproportionately to their merit.</p>

<p>What I was saying was: Yes, the winners are not superhuman. Their projects, and the rest of their seemingly superhuman accomplishments, are within the expected range of regular human achievement. They are puffed up by the publicity surrounding the contest, but that's what happens with contests. So maybe they are being rewarded disproportionately to merit, but they did not necessarily have illegitimate help, and they are not necessarily freaks.</p>

383

<p>GFG- maybe it's time to move. H and I are both Ivy graduates (undergrad and grad) and we've moved around a lot; got along well with our neighbors regardless of where we lived or their own circumstances; loved living in "flyover country" where nobody had heard of the Ivy League except for a couple of die-hards who lost money on the Harvard/Yale football game every year.</p>

<p>I submit your perspective on how widespread a problem these "freakish' HS kids are is quite skewed. You could probably name 10 HS who have this problem. My son at MIT knew maybe one of the type of kid you're talking about.... everyone else seemed pretty normal-- in HS they went to prom, they worked in pizza stores or scooping ice cream, they had very significant intellectual prowess and curiousity but most of them liked going to a basketball game or playing ultimate like any college kid.</p>

<p>I have nieces and nephews at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth and Columbia. We've entertained their friends and put up a few for vacation periods or when they need a place to crash for a day or two. All of them strike me as absurdly smart and motivated and well-read.... but quite normal in their interactions with other people. None of them has cured cancer; none of them seem to have suffered from a childhood of parental pushing and angst.</p>

<p>I don't know where you live, but the kind of childhood you describe seems quite anomolous to me even among high achievers. Parental pushing only goes so far.</p>

384

<p>For most successful people, motivation comes from inner desire to do something. Most of the kids doing research are interested in it for whatever reason. In the same household different kids comes out to be different.</p>

<p>Now if you think all kids would be interested in research given the opportunity probably not. Let us take case of the level of opportunity: Science professor who give access to high school kids for research – why their kids are not majority of Intel semifinalist. Because kids in that professor household value different things. Professor could have formalized his theories and gave his or her own kid best access to scientific research. However their own kids have no interest and thus they may be choosing to pursue other interests. This happens all the time.</p>

385

<p>I think JHS has made an excellent point. The publicity and rewards attached to this program, combined with a competitive environment, can create a problem. None of us are saying a bright and talented kid shouldn't pursue his interests. None of us are saying being an Intel finalist is bad. But maybe we are saying that the "hero" status of it needs to be controlled so that kids do their own work with integrity and motivated by their own inner passion for science, and they do it within the context of a balanced life.</p>

386

<p>Newparent:</p>

<p>For quotes, do as follows, but take away the spaces:<br>
[ quote ] text [ / quote ]. If you remove all the spaces, you will get the effect I used. you can also do bold and italics using the same method.</p>

387

<p>TheGFG (and others): </p>

<p>The most successful Intel competitor among my children's friends was, in addition to valedictorian, the president of his class and easily one of the most popular kids in the school. He had groupies -- groupie-management was actually one of his problems. He wound up seeking friendships among non-science girls (like my D and her friends) because they were less in awe of him than the science girls (and boys) and would call him on BS from time to time. He was far from emotionally perfect -- he felt under a great deal of pressure to live up to his image. But I don't think he missed out on a whole lot of high-school fun. </p>

<p>I'm sure there are less social kids in the Intel group, but so what? It's unlikely that doing the competition was retarding their social development. On the contrary, it was putting them in labs with a lot of slightly older role models, and it was sending them to competitions which (among other things) serve as giant mixers for kids who have a lot in common.</p>

388

<p>I agree that the publicity makes the achievements perhaps more awesome than they actually are, but some of the mystification is due to the fact that ordinary readers are awed by scientific language. Sodium nitrate has a greater wow quotient than plain old salt.
When my S was in 7th grade, he decided to write his science paper (every kid had one) on mad cow disease, except that he gave it its scientific name, bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Lots of people have read about mad cow disease, but if you said bovine spongiform encephalopath or BSE, you probably would get glassy stares.</p>

389

<p>The GFG:</p>

<p>How many Intel finalists do you know? I've met quite a few, and they are not the misfits you make them out to be, nor were they pushed by their parents. No amount of parental pushing will turn an ordinary kid into a Newton. </p>

<p>There are plenty of kids who are pushed by their parents to be the best athletes, to be the best piano player, to be the best.... and some of these kids do achieve high. But without an inner drive and some innate talent they will not achieve high enough to win national or international recognition. Ordinary kids by definition are not the stuff from which extraordinary achievers are made. </p>

<p>As for 10 going on 30, please tell me what is the appropriate age to master calculus. I know a kid who can talk about multivariable calculus and linear algebra and advanced physics very knowledgeably and he is only 11. He does have beautiful manners and seems very happy with life in general. But that could be because his parents allow him to learn at his own pace rather than entertaining illusions that calculus is something to be tackled only by 18 years old, if at all. </p>

<p>Worry instead about kids who are spending all their time videogaming or hooking up randomly out of sheer boredom rather than about kids who have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge.</p>

390

<p>marite just a minor correction.</p>

<p>sodium nitrate = meat preservative
sodium chloride = common salt</p>

<p>but I knew the point you were trying to make.</p>

391

<p>Going back a few posts...let's not compare National Merit Scholars with Intel/STS finalists. NSM is based on one test (the PSAT)...and to become a finalist, you need to do an essay and a little more paperwork. Intel/STS requires substantially more effort on the part of the student....as has been widely discussed on this thread.</p>

392

<p>Simba, thanks! and OOPS! I was too lazy to check on my vague memory of high school chemistry from 40+ years ago.</p>

393

<p>If these kids worked more alone, not with aids, and other grad students, and mentors, profs, and scientists, etc, there work would be more valid in many people eyes</p>

<p>It like saying, look my kid built a car- well that kid had that did it truly by himelf deserve more credit than the kid who did it with an engineer, a welder, etc</p>

<p>You can put lots of kids in front of a microscope, and if they are motivated enough, but no science geniuses, they too can make "breakthroughs"...in a very structured, guided world, sure, with hard work you can do quite a lot, that by no means shows that ALL of these Intel winners are super scientists</p>

<p>I would be more impressed with a kid who came uo with something in his garage or kitchen than in a state of the art, million dollar, high tech lab with oodles of professionals around guiding the process</p>

<p>Hours spent doing something is great, we all know the old quote, but that does mean always mean that the person doing it is "superior" in brain power than others</p>

<p>When you have one place spewing out intel winners, its a mill, and even if the kids are learning, the program loses its validity to a degree because its seen more as a business and result driven rather than experience driven</p>

<p>How many kids go into that lab place and fail? how many have their thesis disproven? how many don't discover something</p>

<p>that would be interesting to know, or do most go in and are "right"</p>

394

<p>This thread has evolved into some happy moms relating the experiences of their happy kids. I'm so glad for everyone...happy moms and kids are good. High achievement is good. Summer camps for gifted kids are good. Intel is good. Life is good. What was the issue again?</p>

395

<p>
[quote]
What was the issue again?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Precisely. And who derailed the thread from whether or not some Intel winners deserved their prize to whether they were deprived of their childhood?</p>

<p>Don't you like feel-ggod stories? Or would you prefer that winners of competition, whatever their field, be miserable? I'm sure there are plenty of unhappy musicians. But Yo Yo Ma sure looks happy when he performs and when he interacts with students.</p>

396

<p>Citygirlsmom - What might be cosidered by some on this thread to be "more valid" has never been part of the Science Talent Search competition.</p>

<p>STS (when it was Westinghouse, and now Intel) was not designed to be students doing independent research. Please see my post #349, with the link to an article about the contest in the 1980's....that shows, even then, kids worked in scientists labs.</p>

<p>It's not a secret, or deceptive. It's right out in the open, as part of the process Science Service recommends for preparing a project. Science Service, on their website, provides a directory of science training programs for teachers and students:
"Many Intel STS participants take part in a science training program to help them with their projects. This link takes you to a list of more than 300 training programs that take place throughout the year at colleges and universities."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciserv.org/sts/students/index.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciserv.org/sts/students/index.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

397

<p>Marite,
Hmmm, a little combative...This thread was not created to challenge or criticize the choices you've made for your own kids and yet you seem to be taking all of this extremely personally.<br>
Sure, I like feel good stories. Is Yo Yo Ma happy? I don't know him personally, so I have no idea. It is consistent with your logic to assume that because he looks happy when he performs and teaches, therefore he is happy, but I don't think it's quite that simple. Sort of like the issues on this thread. Tell you what, we can agree to disagree...how about that?
2boysima,
Thank you...back to the issues..we may not always agree, but you always have great evidence! You are right...but is the problem that kids are working in labs and then presenting the lab's research? For me it's been about the kid's passion...if he joins the lab to find the answer to a quest and helps to design the experiment, I'm ok with that...if he joins a lab, is given a hypothetical, shown how to evaluate it and has the results explained to him because it's above his head..it's a little more iffy. What do you think?</p>

398

<p>citygirlsmom --with all due respect, what you are proposing (having kids work alone in a garage) is a useless endeavor. Do you think this is 1844? If Intel does anything great it's not giving awards or getting kids into college but rather teaching them about how science is done. Your proposed mode would teach kids nothing about the collaborative, mentor-driven, piece-by-piece world of 21st century science. So ...it would by my reckoning be ridiculous. I for one would never support a program like that in 2006 --what a collossal waste of time. Some kids are cheerleaders, and some are working in science ...but the ones that work in science need to be trained in 21st century, not sent to some cartoon version of 19th century science to show they can "do it alone." Science is not done alone today --that is an old world, obsolete view. btw, my two kids did not do Intel or work in science labs, so I am not a parent defending my own. But I do happen to focus on lab science in my work ...and I have an eye as to what is useful and what is useless to our society. What you are suggesting is useless.</p>

<p>For high school kids it is not about making a breakthrough, it is about learning about the process of science whether they discover something or not --THAT is the real value added, and the only reason (but a great one) to keep Intel alive.</p>

<p>It is NOT about Intel discovering science geniuses. It is about high school kids discovering science. We need more scientists --we already seem to be importing most of them from somewhere in Asia. And if we send our Intel kids to work alone in garages, it will be that many more scientists from overseas we will need. </p>

<p>Intel is something we should all get behind as a true social good.
Science research is mentor-driven.
Intel is mentor-driven.
Intel is trying to look to the future and not the past.</p>

<p>Where is the context here?</p>

399

<p>I have absolutely no personal stake in this debate. My S never entered in competitions such as Intel. But a lot of posts strike me as ill wishing toward those students who achieve high enough to be recognized. So after numerous posts debating whether they had achieved their awards through deception, unfair access, etc..., some posters decided to question whether the Intel finalists had done the work of childhood and to worry about their mental health. These baseless speculations strike not only as misplaced but also tinged with a heavy dose of schadenfreude. One has to wonder whether some would prefer winners of competition to be miserable. </p>

<p>And yes, I have encountered Yo Yo Ma as well as seen him perform. And he has always struck me as a very nice person. I know of a young woman who has been taking classes with him and comes away everytime energized and happier.</p>

400

<p>To build on Cloverdale's point.... we need more of everything. We need more writers (I try and hire and them for my company and boy, that's tough....); we need more statisticians (my company reluctantly sponsors talented people from abroad since we can't hire enough numerate Americans); we need more people with strong quantitative skills who can communicate (and oddly enough... that's what we get when we hire foreigners-- they're fluent in their own language, English, and often a random European language or two.)</p>

<p>I'd love to see you folks get as agitated about the lousy state of American K-12 education as you do when one or two hard-working kids who are not Copernicus or Newton or Einstein manages to win a prize or two from some science contest.</p>

<p>Folks-- this isn't a zero sum game. An Intel winner who may or may not have worked independently or not to suit your personal tastes or ethical screen in no way detracts from the overall knowledge in the universe. A scientific discovery which has 40 co-authors and 12 primary researchers is still signficant; a promising treatment for MS means a lot to the people who are suffering even if a high school kid or two snagged undeserved credit for it.</p>

<p>Does the existence of a couple of kids whose parents push them to ridiculous extremes bother me much? I feel sorry for a parent who thinks that their child's accomplishments on a soccer field, in a lab, or on a concert stage somehow defines them as a person.... but I think our society suffers way too much from parents whose standards are way too low, who don't care if their child's school teaches trig let alone pushes their kid into working with a lab mentor.</p>