<p>For the poster who asked why so many students from NY are winning in these competitions, it's because they are entering in large numbers. Interestingly, I believe that about half of the entrants are from NY and only 40% of the winners, meaning that NY-ers projects may be weaker, in some cases.</p>
<p>Actually Jen, I was not referring to Science fair opportunities, nor summer programs, just assemblies and programs for the entire school population on an ongoing basis. And there probably are some, which I do not know of, and that is good news.</p>
<p>I'd just like to point out, that if a tiered system were developed, with differing project budget tiers, etc, then the biggest reward and most attention, would still be directed at the 'mentored' and 'doctoral level' projects that seem to be so maligned here. (Although I think 'doctoral' projects seems to be a bit of an exaggeration). </p>
<p>Furthermore, as long as science fairs are promoting active interest and enthusiasm to the kids involved, then they' are doing their job. I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed my little science fair projects without attending a single large science fair, and am now working at the university level designing on my own independnet project. I know a lot of Intel semi-finalists and finalists, and frankly, not all of them are performing as well as you would expect them to. Just as many of my science friends, successful ones at that, never even really did science in high school. </p>
<p>Did I win any big prizes? No. Do I still love science? Yes. Did science fairs do their jobs? Yes. </p>
<p>If children need cash prizes and recognition to ensure their interest in science, then maybe it's just not for them.</p>
<p>Many people's greatest gripe is that their kids are losing interest in science because they're not winning the big-label science fairs, which offer recognition and scholarships. </p>
<p>My point was that if children need that kind of award for their continued interest in science, then maybe it's just not for them. As I said in my post, many an Intel finalist that I've known has lost, or never had, the proper interest and enthusiasm for science that I see in many more of my non-big-label-science-competition-winner friends. </p>
<p>"I was not referring to Science fair opportunities, nor summer programs, just assemblies and programs for the entire school population on an ongoing basis. And there probably are some, which I do not know of, and that is good news."</p>
<p>Chocoholic: Actually there are some good ones. Dr. Glen Seaborg from UC Berkeley may have pioneered the concept of inquiry based hands on sicence for elementary and middle school kids. The Lawrence Hall of Science at UC Berkeley has produced some wonderful teaching modules to teach concepts. His theory was simple, kids learn best by doing. Each of the units LHS publishes are called GEMS (Great Exploration in Math and Science). In the first lesson of each unit, 'stuff' happens, the second lesson is the discovery phase where kids find out why the 'stuff' happens. Third lesson deals with some measurements and obervations, and fourth deals with variables.</p>
<p>Do you need expensive equipments to teach the module? No...simple household material can do the trick.</p>
<p>I have used them as after school activity in one of the middle school for several years, and many school districts accross US are adopting many of the GEMS modules. Developing love for science is a continuous process. Science Fairs are the end results of that love, not the other way around.</p>
<p>I can't think of any competition that could meet the standards of "fairness" that some of the posts here seem to be setting up. Some schools have more money than others for sports equipment and coaching staff. Some kids have been given expensive lessons from a very young age in music or dance or some individual sport. Some kids have a parent with useful expertise, or simply a parent willing to spend countless hours driving to lessons or ice rinks, or pitching a ball at a budding baseball slugger. Some schools and kids don't have those things. Is this "fair"?.</p>
<p>I'm going to propose an analogy to math competitions, which I happen to know a lot about. Unlike the project-based science competitions, there is no advantage to access to fancy equipment or university-based research teams. Innate talent is the most important thing. And what a kid writes down in a math competition is unquestionably his own. Does that mean the playing field is level? Absolutely not! Some schools don't do math competitions, or won't pay registration fees, or won't provide a teacher to proctor exams, or won't pay for teams to travel to tournaments. Some of the kids at the top have a parent who is a math professor. Some of the kids have received special tutoring or attended math summer camps which help to prepare them for competitions.</p>
<p>Does the fact that math competitions are not equally available to every interested kid make them somehow "unfair"? Maybe. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Math competitions, like project-based science competitons, engage talented kids who would otherwise be at risk of disengaging out of boredom. They bring the most gifted kids into contact with peers who may be more like them than their school-mates are, allowing for a supportive math or scientific community. They allow for identification of kids with unusual talent, so that further opportunities (including mentoring) can be made available to them. The process may not be "equal", but it sure feels "fair" in the sense of rewarding talent and hard work, and nurturing really smart kids who frequently get short-shrift in our society.</p>
<p>I didn't get the sense that anyone was looking to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Agreed that schools are inherently unequal, as is access. Re-stating once more, I think the troubling question is not unequal but pssibly unethical practices.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the troubling question is not unequal but possibly unethical practices.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know about science fairs, but Intel and Siemens-Westighouse both require statements from any mentor detailing exactly how the student got the idea, and what was done by student and what was done by the mentor. The student in the original article is openly and unself-consciously discussing the contributions of the mentor and facility. If those contributions are acknowledged and described in detail, where is the unethical part?</p>
<p>I don't know if you have kids, but if you do you will know that kids love goals (so do most adults) and they love knowing whether or not they have succeeded in their goals. Science fairs etc have the potential to do that for students of science as debate and math competitions do for those of that interest/ability.
My D entered the science fair this year after she had already been accepted to her college of choice ED. She did it to have a scientific project in addition to her science class work (I tried to talk her out of it). Few students are going to do research for the hail of it. Maybe you did. I didn't. Most dont.</p>
<p>Texas137,</p>
<p>As Garland said, no one is looking to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The point is to make state and National science fairs/competitions accessible to all highschool students who have the drive and the potential to participate. Some barriers require more effort from some participants (low income families/school systems etc) but they neednt be insurmountable if it can be helped. It should be students competing with students, not grad-school team + student v grad-school team + student.</p>
<p>Well, to address the unethical question, the ISEF seems to expect the students to come up with their topics themselve. Two of those in the article made it clear that they were handed theirs by their "mentors." I dunno why that's allowed; maybe it wasn't indicated in their applications.</p>
<p>I don't have any kids, seeing as I'm barely an adult myself. Currently a junior in college. It's true that children love to have reinforcement and encouragement, but these needn't be in the form of cash and recognition. Your daughter has the right idea, she's doing science because she loves it, not because of the recognition that she hopes to gain from it. She doesn't need affirmation that she has succeeded in what she's doing from some science fair where the winners may or may not be better than her in the long run. </p>
<p>There are quite a lot of people who do research 'for the hell of it', who genuinely appreciate science and enjoy the excitement of discovering new things. These people could just as easily apply their skills to other activities and make gobs of money and become famous. Yet they do research. Because they enjoy it.</p>
<p>Let's face it, the search for equality in science fairs is an impossible task. State and national science fairs are accessible to all: Anyone can apply and have a shot at winning it. What would be unfair is to limit the level of complexity that can be allowed in these competitions. There are many high schoolers out there who are capable of doing research at the university level, why handcuff their abilities and potential? Sure, you can add in a tiered competition, but even so, all the prestige will be rewarded to the top tier, which would be the equivalent of the Intel or Siemens. </p>
<p>If a child doesn't have an opportunity to do this for whatever reasons, then at least respect those who do and know that the opportunity will arise soon enough for this child too. As long as they hold onto their love of science, all will be fine in the long run. </p>
<p>Minor, nitpicky detail, it usually isn't a whole 'grad-school' team that works with an undergrad or highschooler. More like, one grad student who guides the younger student along their project. </p>
<p>I'd just like to point out that these mentors also have an academic career and reputation to uphold. I somewhat doubt they would risk that for some highschool competition by falsely filling out the portion of the project describing their and the students relative involvement.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, even well-educated people, employed in top professions make poor choices, and risk their reputations, everyday, for various reasons.</p>
<p>Also, regarding underpriveleged students - in fact, Stony Brook does an INCREDIBLE, and I really do want to emphasize that, incredible job of granting kids who could not afford a private education the same research opportunities. The sciences at Stony Brook can compete with the top departments across the globe. And yet, Stony Brook is usually much more diverse than these private schools. Only 34% of the student body is caucasian - I simply say this because I don't want people to get the idea that Stony Brook is this university that caters to the wealthy and well connected - that is far from the truth.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I know almost nothing of this subject of science fairs.</p>
<p>I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of knowledge and understanding this year's finalists displayed. Of course mentorship is incredibly important. It is, however, something to be cherished, not disparaged. A mentor can point you in the right direction and challenge you think on a higher level - they cannot do the work for you, especially in the case of Intel projects. I know that each of the forty finalists spent months laboring over their project. Even if some of the finalists did have access to university labs, kudos to them - they sought out the opportunity and took advantage of it. Take the winner of this year's competition. An amazing project, completely his idea, completed in a college lab by none other than himself. And a great kid. Going to City University, NY - a refreshing choice.</p>
<p>And there certainly were projects completed at home - in the kitchen, in the basement, or in the high school chem lab. Some finalists only had contact with their mentors through e-mail. Others had to compete with grad students and high school classes. The research math projects didn't require labs at all, just innovative thinking. There were fascinating and obviously home-grown sociology projects among the finalists' projects.</p>
<p>Did any winners NOT have access to a university lab? just wondering....I would be interested in the break down of who had help from colleges- labs, undergrad students, professors, and those that were homegrown...I think seeing some stats would answer a lot of questions...</p>
<p>as for lying on a form, if you didn't do the project fully yourself, then of course you would lie...if you broke the rules, but were still entering, of course you would lie, if you cheat once, lying on a form would be no big deal....</p>
<p>For whatever reason, although it has been repeated by various people here numerous times, the objection to the situation described in the original article does not appear to be clear to many. The problem is NOT that kids worked in college labs. It's that -- as you'll see if you reread the article -- students clearly stated that the professors they worked with GAVE THEM THEIR HYPOTHESIS AND THESIS. Sorry for shouting, but the distinction should be very clear. I have two kids in college and I can tell you that professors know very well how to work with a student without handing or her him a project that way. </p>
<p>I also read about this year's winner and was very touched by his story.</p>