<p>Yes, my son had to read "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "Cold Sassy Tree" the same year in school. He kept complaining about the "southern" names and I jokingly pretended to misunderstand him. Besides, I like cows.</p>
<p>Id first like to point out that we should give a little more credit to the kids who have put in the time to do the science and their projects. Even if they didnt understand that subject matter before they started, and maybe never wouldve understood it, they certainly do understand it now. I think it is ludicrous and denigrating to the time and effort that theyve put in to say that those kids are faking their scientific knowledge at their presentations. The fact that they can intelligently discuss a subject that is not normally reachable to other high school students is very much laudable. As for the article, I feel like many of the quotes for the kids were taken vastly out of context to paint the picture that the author wished to present. </p>
<p>There have been many posts about the projects being micromanaged. Yes, the kids have been guided. Science is a collaborative field. There has been hundreds of years of research. If there were no guidance, nothing would get done. </p>
<p>These kids have taken the opportunities given to them and used them to their advantage. They have taken part in often stunning scientific projects. They have devoted the necessary time and energy to get their just reward. I myself was not presented with these opportunities, but am still appreciative of those who had them. I also find it interesting that no Intel finalist has posted their opinions on this topic, as Im sure it would be very different from those exhibited so far. Im sure there would be much less suspicion about mentors and students not honestly filling out their part IIA. </p>
<p>In all cases, kids are taking advantage of the opportunities presented to them. Doubtlessly, these opportunities are different, as dictated by the area that they grew up in, their parents financial status, etc etc. However, that is beyond human control. From birth, we are in different situations and offered different opportunities. Some of us knew to take the SATs in 7th grade to allow us to participate in those high caliber summer camps. Some of us have the opportunities to take prep courses that allow us to score higher on standardized tests. Some of us knew that finding a mentor and lab will give us a truly smashing science project. There is no control for equality of opportunity. The only thing that we can really hope for is equal treatment. </p>
<p>And there is. Only high schoolers are allowed to participate in these competitions, you dont see university students competing. The fact that some of these high schoolers are performing at the university level should not exclude them from the competition, just as an extra talented athlete is not excluded from competitions. Mentored projects are judged on the same playing field as those independent projects and the independent projects are still capable of winning. Thats equal treatment. </p>
<p>Many of you argue that this is not fair, that since not everyone is offered the same opportunities, there ought to be two separate competitions. In a sense, there already are: The Intel and Siemens competitions can be said to cater towards the high caliber/ high profile mentored projects, thats why they win so often.</p>
<p>Stepping back a bit, this is just another example of the huge advantage that wealth and family background play in the college admissions game. It's not fair per se, but neither is life. Whether it's sports lessons, SAT prep courses, or having a hand-up in a science competition, these sorts of opportunities belong overwhelmingly to students of means.</p>
<p>It would be nice if schools looked at each student in the context of their circumstances, but life and college admissions are not bound to fairness.</p>
<p>what's being judged in the contest - the project, or the student? the project, admittedly is a team effort. the student is basically a presenter, i'm not even sure if the student gets to orally present his, i mean the project, let alone be questioned by the judges. my only point is - the winners must be judged by the level and strenght of student involvement and not just on the import of the project.</p>
<p>There is no doubt in my mind that Intel participants are both extraordinarily bright and extraordinarily dedicated. That they were able to make use of sophisticated lab equipment and receive advice from faculty mentors should not be surprising. That's what students in college and graduate school do. And it is they, not their mentors, who get the degree; the mentors' help is indicated in the acknowledgment section.</p>
<p>What struck me when reading the article was not so much that Ward Melville students benefitted from proximity to Stony Brook and faculty willing to act as mentors but that WM was willing to invest so much resources into supporting the Intel program. Two full-time faculty, a dedicated photocopy machine, staff that makes sure that all applications are complete, etc... This is the kind of resources that most high schools can only dream of.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This undoubtedly happens in the college admission process. The admissions officers do a lot of handicapping, based on regional differences, when they decide who has the right stuff to go to a highly selective college. And that is one of several reasons why I don't worry about the phenomenon that prompted the news article that triggered this large and growing thread. </p>
<p>I can testify on behalf of the science fair program that my son participated in that his mentor described IN EXACTITUDE what his role was in the project (minimal) and what my son's role was. That's built into the approval forms required for the projects. (My son's project had to be pre-approved because it involved working with flammable substances.) I noted at the regional science fair judging that nearly all participants were private school kids--including kids from private schools with no academic reputation whatever--and public school kids hardly showed up. You would see a much different selection of schools at the regional football tournament.</p>
<p>Marite - most high schools probably wouldn't even dream of expending such resources on Intel. They would rather expend the resources for full time staff and dedicated equipment for their football teams.</p>
<p>First of all, it is in the Intel rules that the project is not and may not be a team effort. The student is certainly not supposed to be just a presenter. </p>
<p>Secondly, I posted as the parent of two students who did extremely well in this and other major competitions. I have no complaints; they were thrilled and we were thrilled. I am still very critical of the approach described in today's Times. What a difference from the story in the other Times piece (posted by me). I should say I do have a complaint: articles like these cast doubt on the integrity of people like my kids and nycdad's kids, who did their own work with appropriate adult help. </p>
<p>I can also tell you that at one university I know very well, anyone who hands in work claiming it is their own when it isn't is considered in violation of the Honor Code and will be suspended or expelled. </p>
<p>When I was growing up, the Intel was called the Westinghouse, and the people who entered it were the rare scientific geniuses who set up contraptions in their basements. Now it has become an industry, like so many other aspects of our young people's lives. What are they learning? I just wonder.</p>
<p>Marite, just to reply to your comment, programs such as this one, with dedicated faculty, etc., have proliferated across the country. They are wonderful insofar as they offer students an opportunity to get deeply involved in research.</p>
<p>Texas:</p>
<p>You have a point!</p>
<p>Aparent:</p>
<p>I was not aware of this trend. I thought programs such as RSI were intended to fill the gap in research opportunities. In our hs, we have faculty coaches, but no one dedicated to nurturning research. Much of our resources rightly go to supporting struggling students.</p>
<p>"Much of our resources rightly go to supporting struggling students."</p>
<p>Marite, our hs -- which I think is very similar to yours, diverse in every way -- only funds this program because it is committed to encouraging any eager, committed student to have the experience of doing research and working with a mentor. Some will be recognized by Intel (and we have had some unexpected and exciting ones); others will have a memorable learning experience. It is really inspiring and is a lot like the situation of the kids in the Midwood High piece whose link I posted.</p>
<p>why are 18% of this years Siemen's semifinalists and 39% of the finalists from New York State. The results seem heavily skewed.</p>
<p>Look, nothing is fair. In my local high school, the GC's spend their time in court testifying on behalf of a junior who shot her step-father; working to get a Freshman into drug treatment; helping the dozens of kids who transfer in every year get assigned a home-room. The seniors, of course, get lost in the shuffle-- who can worry about Williams vs. Wesleyan when you've got real life crises unfolding in front of you? That doesn't make it right... but that's reality in a lot of high schools. So I laugh when I read posts about GC's who get involved in the whole college app's process-- around here you're lucky if your transcript makes it out of the GCs office and into a mail box.</p>
<p>Similiarly, we can't get a teacher for AP physics... they don't exist at the salary the district can pay, even if we could find one, which of course we can't. Great parking lot, super ball field, top- notch cheerleading squad. Among the highest per capita spending on "Special Ed" in the state-- I'm not knocking kids with learning needs, but savvy parents know that if you want anything from a mini-van picking your kid up in your driveway or private tutoring, you just need to claim some disorder, produce a Dr's report, and threaten a lawsuit to get services.</p>
<p>So, does any of this Intel stuff apply to me and my town? Of course not.</p>
<p>I just don't think it helps foster open debate about education, teaching highly motivated kids, or breeding another generation of scientists to debunk the Intel's and their ilk because some districts and some schools have proximity, financial support, and an interested parent body. My district doesn't... but I admire the districts who do. If there are professors and mentors who have acted inappropriately, then this article will help flush that out. I still think that high school kids who are motivated enough to ride their bikes over to a research lab after school, and who can actually accomplish something in a lab deserve to be supported and not vilified.</p>
<p>It seems that many here have very stong opinions about things they know very little about. I can personally attest that I spent months of running data just to find a topic for a project. Mentors (who are rarely a team of professors and grad students and are somtimes just a high school teacher) guide the student and edit papers. An extraordinary amount of time and dedication is required to write these papers and do the actual experiments. Backround research takes an incomprehensible amount of time and the mentor has little if any role in this. Backround research is basically just searching for reading published papers. The student needs to understand these papers and be able to realize how they apply to their own research. No one tells the student exactly what to write; the students does all the writing and the mentor edits.</p>
<p>There is no spoon feeding, these students put more effort into these projects than almost any other non homework/test related endeavor by other students (excluding athletics require a lot of time).</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with the above. Last year, I read about an Intel finalist's activities here on CC. He spent a lot of time finding a mentor at Stony Brook. Once he had (took him 2-3 tries), he dedicted himself to a project of his own finding. He was extraordinary, from what I could make out. An 18-year-old being able to do complex calculations using computers to solve some problem in applied math.</p>
<p>"I used to feel proud when my son did those lego and knex things at the age of 6-7 when the suggested ages were 10-12. He was following directions."</p>
<p>Ad hominem attack deleted.</p>
<p>2 boys at my school entered the Intel competition and they were both obnoxious about it. One kept telling us how this researcher at a company was going to help him make $100000.00 He would go over to the company every day after school, and he did use hundreds of hours of his time. But it was definitely the woman who was running the show. The other boy was son of a college professor who used his contacts at the college to design the whole science experiment. This kid did a lot of the work at home, but once admitted to us at lunch that he was typing up whatever he was told. I don't want to say what state, or how far they made it. But it p***** everyone else off. Really all they gave was their time.</p>
<p>Well, it's obvious to me that what's needed is an INTEL project on the make-up of Intel winners. Some high school student needs to find a mentor in the psych or sociology department and start compiling the data. I'd like to know: family backgrounds (scientific parents were mentioned) - is there a quid pro quo going on at Stony Brook (you mentor my kid/I'll mentor yours?); the dollar amount of resources WM high school puts into their Intel prep program; criteria for admission to the prep program and whether it's limited enrollment; do other high schools in the area have comparable programs?; do similar research on the other schools with high numbers of winners and compare with schools producing 'singletons'. </p>
<p>I recall reading a list of the titles of this years' finalists, and it pretty much told the whole story. There were topics that implied a lot of heavy technology and topics that sounded 'old school' science fair. As others pointed out, it's all about access. It's also all about knowing how the game is really played. The game can be whatever it wants to be, as long as students understand what it is. It does bother me that a student without access to mentors and labs but with an intruiging original question but not a lot of resources is judged alongside someone doing advanced physics at a national lab. Apples and oranges for sure. The fact that there are large scholarships at play is probably what's getting people's dander up. I don't think it's exactly fair, some of it is not, in my personal opinion, legitimate but I am glad that it's being discussed and that the article is shedding some light on it.</p>
<p>This conclusion suggests that someone only knows how to copy and paste from journals without truly understanding the theory behind the research (which would require logical reasoning skills and conceptual understanding of the topic).</p>