<p>Your steroid analogy is incorrect. The similar analogy for baseball is a coach telling a player to move their fingers on a baseball to get a better curve. The baseball players works, over and over again, at that pitch. Eventually they get it right, or the coach again gives them guidance on what else they might do to get the pitch correct -- maybe they need to drop their shoulder more. And it continues. Just like a mentor working with a student in a science research setting.</p>
<p>More like, the coach pitches the games for him</p>
<p>Been through that discussion already on this thread as it relates to Intel/STS (and a few other topics!)</p>
<p>For the majority of cases, including those in the original referenced article, we'll just have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I looked at a few of the science training programs from the link above which are located in my state. Looks like we should add to the impressive list of credentials of the science fair winners that their parents are probably wealthy. The program closest to where we live costs a mere $3000. This brings to mind the ubiquitous leadership training programs in Washington, DC for which invitations are sent to high schoolers. Supposedly the students are nominated, but the programs can't really be particularly selective because everyone we know has received the propaganda. So a few pampered kids from our town go, their picture gets put on the front page of the newspaper, and we are all so very impressed that they were chosen from among their peers to be trained in leadership in the nation's capital.</p>
<p>I could not look up the programs. A number of RSI participants compete successfully in Intel/STS every year. RSI is free.</p>
<p>For a hundred thousand dollar prize, you would be suprised at what people will call their own work, and you will never get the real story out of some winners, because why should they and this quote from a poster</p>
<p>"These kids DID do most of the work on their part of the project themselves. If you look at the projects, they are not all so hard that it's impossible for a high school kid to work on it. " </p>
<p>The interesting part is "their PART of the project"- its either all their work or it ain't and if it ain't why give out prize money</p>
<p>An analogy could be someone who is racing, and is given a 20 yard head start, with people fanning them, giving them water, new shoes, smoothing the path, showing them all the tricks, and getting 100 grand for that</p>
<p>once you start putting in $$ the value that is supposedly gained gets lost in the hunt for the prize</p>
<p>and please, I could give you ten motivated kids right now and any one of them in the right lab with the right mentor could win....its location, $, and connections</p>
<p>I've met with incredibly impressive research students as an alum interviewer. I have asked them difficult questions and they all had "ownership" of their information. Many of the quality programs are free and even include a stipend. RSI, which Marite pointed out is very well known. The Clark Scholars Research Program at Texas Tech is entirely covered by a grant and the students receive a $750 stipend. Many of the students who attend that program use their stipend to cover the cost of getting to Lubbock, Texas.</p>
<p>See my post #319 for some of the no cost internships.</p>
<p>In addition:</p>
<p>Roswell Park Cancer Institute:
<a href="http://www.roswellpark.org/Education/Summer_Programs/SummerOpportunitiesforHighSchoolStudents%5B/url%5D">http://www.roswellpark.org/Education/Summer_Programs/SummerOpportunitiesforHighSchoolStudents</a></p>
<p>Rockefeller Institute Science Outreach program:
<a href="http://www.rockefeller.edu/outreach/students.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.rockefeller.edu/outreach/students.php</a></p>
<p>Assortment of programs at NASA AMES:
<a href="http://education.arc.nasa.gov/pages/students.html#highschool%5B/url%5D">http://education.arc.nasa.gov/pages/students.html#highschool</a></p>
<p>Program at Hope College where the students earn a $1,000 stipend
<a href="http://www.hope.edu/pr/pressreleases/content/view/full/10163%5B/url%5D">http://www.hope.edu/pr/pressreleases/content/view/full/10163</a></p>
<p>A student truly interested in research would have no problem researching how to get an internship (I found these in 5 minutes through Google.) Are there Intel semi-finalists who paid to participate in summer research programs? Yes. However, most are able to find mentor relationships at no fee. As stated previously, it's very possible in Math and Social Science to work with a mentor through e-mail and phone. </p>
<p>I've already addressed location, $ and connections in previous posts...with evidence showing not all finalists had all 3...or even one...of these advantages. And...once again...Intel/STS has never claimed that the competition is for students doing work complete independently. Science Service actually suggests that most students take part in a program to help them with their projects.</p>
<p>TheGFG: Washington leadership program. I forget the name of the one my D went to; it was housed at Georgetown. My kids' school sends five kids each year for free. Requires written application to the school program, and 15 finalists are pressure-interviewed by a panel of teachers, alumni, and one student who went the year before (so at least one of the five is always a junior). The panel then picks. Lord knows where they got the money, but it is a pretty sweet deal. Turned my kid off of mainstream politics COMPLETELY, but she got a lovely picture of herself with Rick Santorum (whom she regards as The Embodiment of Evil).</p>
<p>Umm yeah ok, we are going in circles but w/e.</p>
<p>"For a hundred thousand dollar prize, you would be suprised at what people will call their own work, and you will never get the real story out of some winners, because why should they"</p>
<p>I keep on talking about this, but you’re talking about this like it’s okay for kids to blatantly lie about what they did and expect that no one will call them out on it. Seriously? Before these things are submitted to Intel/Siemens/whatever they need to reviewed by the mentor and their signature is required. Do you think kids are like buying off their mentors/the "6 PhDs"? Or they're somehow offering them something to have them lie and say that the scientists' work is the kids? The entries are checked every step of the way. ESPECIALLY when it's so much freaking money.</p>
<p>Right and also The Jackson Laboratory in Maine (I think? ) also offers a research program for free. Actually, I believe you get a stipend of like $3000 to research for 8 weeks. My friend went so I'm not sure, google it.</p>
<p>no, I don'[t think they are buying them off, but i wonder when even the winners themselves and the mentors themselves make statements like, I gave him the ideas for his research, or she worked on PART of the research" </p>
<p>If you look at many science fair winners, how many are mom and dads work, eh? and what parent is going to say, I did most of it, </p>
<p>Yes, i do think there is much coaching, much correctlng, much directing, much leading, and after a while, the lines of whose work it is can get blurred</p>
<p>You act like no one ever fudges things- it happens ALL the time- in sports, business, research- you have researchers trying to keep other quailifed researchers OUT- researsch is cut throat- money is very important- and if you think no one blurs those lines in these contests that are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, you are being naive</p>
<p>we get posters on this site who talk about cheating, that its not bad cause everyone does it, and yet you want people to believe that this intel group, everyone of them, from mentors, to researchers, are all pure as the driven snow</p>
<p>do the judges go into the labs, or do they just look at paperwork?</p>
<p>people cheat, they blur the lines, research is not pure, it can be cutthroat, ugly, money driven, with big egos, and yet we are to believe that all intel is sweet, kind, not motivated by anything but pure science, if so,why the money prizes? if it is so much about learning, research, growth, why not just give a big ole trophy?</p>
<p>Actually, not all of the winners have mentors like in that article. There are a number of students each year who legitimately went out and did their own projects without the help of a university professor. But most do have at least some help. They sought help by themselves in many cases, and their parents or teachers sought it for them in others. And yes, there are some cheaters. </p>
<p>But the judges look beyond that. Extensive interviews are done. The application isn't just a research paper, it consists of essays, recommendations and other things and ends up being 30-50 pages long. If someone is cheating, the judges can usually tell. Of course, if they had someone take their SATs for them and got 800s in every field, or if their parents did all of their homework for them throughout 4 years of high school, the judges might not know, but that's a different story.</p>
<p>Fact is, in the scientific field (as I'm sure in other fields), there are cheaters for Intel, there will be cheaters in college, and there will be cheaters later in life when you're a researcher or professor. Fact is also, in any field you are in, you have help getting there. If you like car repair, you go out and seek someone to apprentice for. If you want to be a lawyer, you ask someone to let you work in a law office. Same is true in science.</p>
<p>But overall, I think the contest does a lot more good than it does harm. Because of a few cheaters/overmentored kids do you think we should ban all science? Come on.</p>
<p>"Because of a few cheaters/overmentored kids do you think we should ban all science? Come on." that is a pretty odd statement to make....</p>
<p>where did that come from? its the WINNNERS we are looking at, the bragging rights, and it seems many have excessive amounts of help, and that makes the "competition" out of the range of most participants</p>
<p>the point is the $$$$$ involved puts a very different spin on the competition</p>
<p>if my D wants to work in a law office, she will, but she isn't in a huge competition for tens of thousands of dollars</p>
<p>once large amounts of $$ is attached, things need to be really looked at carefully, because the goal is now $$$ and presitige, not the science itself, for many</p>
<p>this is not apprenticing in the classic sense, it is a prize hunt...and that is very different...and a prize hunt for the big bucks</p>
<p>apples and oranges</p>
<p>"if my D wants to work in a law office, she will, but she isn't in a huge competition for tens of thousands of dollars"</p>
<p>If you D is in her second year of law school and wants an internship/summer job in one of the top law firms in the country, she's in a competition that's worth a lot more $$$$$$$$ than the Intel/STS prizes!</p>
<p>Intel/STS is not out of the range of most participants. I have had many prior posts on this thread that list places/organizations/methods for obtaining mentors.</p>
<p>Look at the work of this year's top winner and last year's top winner. Their projects and research were very much "apprenticing in the classic sense."</p>
<p>Quote: "Look at the work of this year's top winner and last year's top winner. Their projects and research were very much "apprenticing in the classic sense." </p>
<p>I have to disagree, at least about the top winner of 2005. I heard his presentation in person, and it was quite clear that this was not simply an apprenticeship...he came up with a major aspect of his amazing project.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether or not he contributed, the fact of the matter remains- he came up with one aspect. This program promotes and fosters a sense of competition to the point where all students have to do is find a research lab that is doing something extraordinary and help out for a couple of weeks. There is nothing fair about this fair. The students don't do much in the way of learning, and even if some do, their accomplishments are underscored by their superficial intentions. If this contest wasn't so heavily funded with ostentatious prizes and looked so spectacular for Harvard, would the kids do it? If you say yes, you're living in a fantasy world. The intent of the contest is to create an interest in science, that intent is lost when students start piggybacking on PhD work and pass it off as their own. There are no students in High School, at least not enough to fill a national contest, that can do this kind of research. I don't care who you are, you just can't do it. I worked this summer doing research-there were tons of kids in Biomed labs, none of them could come out with anything spectacular. These kids were some of the smartest in the city, but they didn't do the research, they simply assisted in what was already going on.</p>
<p>The vast majority of winners are not piggybacking on PHD work and passing it off as their own. They have fulfilled the requirements of the Intel/STS contest which suggests working in a lab and/or finding a mentor. There are plenty of posts on this thread from entrants, semi-finalists and finalists -- or their parents, friends and people who know them. Jennskate's posts extensively discuss the process in a lab and preparing a report for the Science Talent Search.</p>
<p>I did not intend to reduce the accomplishments of the 2005 winner when I suggested his was "apprenticing in the classic sense." The work was very much his own, and it is my understanding he is attending CCNY to continue to work with his mentor. Once again, a fairly classic science research collaborative scenario, which has also been reviewed extensively on this thread.</p>
<p>By the way, there are MANY Intel semi-finalists and finalist who are not admitted to Harvard (as well as many who don't even apply to Harvard.)</p>
<p>Over the past 10 years, according to my contacts at Science Service in Washington DC (as well as published articles), the top three destinations of STS finalists are 1. Harvard 2. Yale 3. MIT. Runners-up are Stanford, Caltech, Cornell, Princeton, NYU.</p>
<p>Yes, I want to tell you all something. I am in New York and I go to Ward melville high school, and I want to say that the students who go there are very dedicated to their work and what they do, they manage their time well, and in the end, it is rewarding that they get to become semi finalists, so stop chastising our school. For a public school, our school has around 10 percent that go to ivy league schools, and 25 percent that go to tier one colleges. It is perhaps one of the most competitive schools in the whole long island area.</p>
<p>That post had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. No one is bashing your school. Congratulations, you go to a nice school, what is your point?</p>