<p>marite, in the edited q's I asked above, would the schools you are familiar with ask the question/want the answer ?</p>
<p>So I'm confused- I didn't read anything about Intel, or any legitimate science competition for that matter. All I saw was 'fuel cell research, which led to a patent application and a trip to Japan to meet the royal family'.</p>
<p>Curm, everything is in a context. For instance, on a much much smaller scale....my D interned with an architect because she wanted to explore this field more as she was interested in possibly majoring in it. She wrote a letter of inquiry to various architects in our community. She got offers and did one. This isn't a big accomplishment but just an example. Now, if one of her parents were an architect, yeah, I would look at the internship a little differently, knowing she may have procured it through connections and/or worked in parent's office. That wasn't her case at all. But when looking at an applicant's endeavors, sure, the context comes into play. If the kid interned at a law office and dad is a lawyer, yeah, I look at it differently than some kid who got such a thing on his own. Still the kid had the experience and it is a worthy one in itself and is part of who he is. If a kid was a lead in the community theater production and mom was the director, sure, I see the context, compared to a kid with no connections. I don't totally discount it, but just put it in context, that's all. If a kid is from a millionaire family and had a certain experience and then some kid from a poor background had a similar experience, I may look at it differently, yeah. A friend of my D's at Brown has done some amazing things for someone her age but I know her father is a diplomat and she has had access to certain activities. But in the end, I look at what a kid accomplished, their level of genuine interest, their own leadership and achievements, dedication, initiative and what not. Life isn't always fair and some people have advantages that others don't. My own kids had no connections. I realize some have. That's just the way it is. Even with the kid in the article, his parents' profession would have been on the application. Colleges do ask about parents' jobs and educational backgrounds as part of gathering a "context" for the applicant.</p>
<p>If a kid did scientific research in a field that his own father works in, I would not call it a "red flag". I would just realize that he had access to mentors and materials that some others would have more difficulty finding on their own. I still would look at the value of what he had done once he got the opportunity and how it contributed to who he is as a person and his pursuit of his areas of interest. I would be more impressed by a student who found these opportunities totally on her/his own, yes. But I would not "discount" a kid who found opportunities through people he knew. Bottom line, the kid was engaged in something of interest in a significant capacity. I'd look at the context of the opportunity but would also still value the experience the student had had.</p>
<p>Cur:</p>
<p>I am not privy to what adcoms do. :( Ideally, of course, adcoms would want to know. The problem I see is as follows: HYP offer admission to about 2,000 students each (perhaps fewer at Yp & P). Each applicant has several ECs, and probably some awards. Besides Intel, there are also NHD, Olympiads, performances, what have you. I personally don't see how adcoms could possibly verify each award that the applicant claims to have received. Granted there is a finite number of Intel winners; but overblown or fraudulent claims can be made about lots of other achievements. For example, being team captain may be impressive. Is an adcom going to check that the applicant was really team captain?</p>
<p>Adcoms are generally not specialists; I doubt that in the specific case of the young man in the story, they would have heard of his dad's name. In order to find out that the dad worked in the very field in which the student did his Intel research, they would have to be pro-active and do some detective work. But then, they would need to exercize as much skepticism toward all the other applications.</p>
<p>Even if colleges ask about parents' occupation, it's really general. For example, the dad could have been described as a research scientist. Whether or not that should raise a red flad is anybody's guess.</p>
<p>"What you really mean Xiggi, is that what is annoying is when other people disagree with YOUR opinions. You claim the holier ground that you should be allowed to express opinions with or with supportable factual data, yet you complain when people disagree with your views. Can't have it both ways."</p>
<p>Abfalle, I am not annoyed in the least when people disagree with my opinions, and engage in a concrete debate about precise events. I am, however, annoyed when people address my posts, yet seem not to bother reading them carefully. For instance, your posts about libel clearly indicated that! </p>
<p>Here's to you about your insistence to read "factual data". Are you still fuming that your first post on these forums--or at least under that screenname- did not get the traction you desired? How factual is your information, and how does it compare with the VERIFIABLE links I posted? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Peege --I doubt that a nuclear chemist would be involved in fuel cell research at all. Somewhere else someone also posted a note about the "nuclear fuel cell". I have no clue where they got that idea
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For what it is worth, could you please tell this forum how you did end up magically finding this thread for your first post, and then not hesitate to make judgments about the posting style of others. </p>
<p>What is your factual relation to this story?</p>
<p>If it was something "adcoms would want to know" and if it is something to be considered "in context" of the opportunities available to the student by virtue of his birth - why then is this not something that we should discuss on this college admissions forum? Or is it just the personal nature that bothers y'all? If so, I'll stop talking about the article and its participants (grudgingly as I find the context near perfect for what we are discussing) but I believe the things we are talking about go to the most grievous of the college admissions farces and deserve a speaker's box in our little park. As always, jmo.</p>
<p>"I imagine that the Intel interview focuses intently on the project. An interviewer would be interested in knowing how much of the project is the student's own contribution and how much it is that of the mentor. And that interview ought to be able to smoke out the fakers."</p>
<p>I am not sure what "interview" you're talking about, for the Intel. If you mean the Science Talent Search, the finalists and semi-finalists are chosen without an interview. They have to submit a huge paper, a long personal application, and letters from their advisors, mentors, etc., detailing what the students' contribution to the project was, the students' potential in the sciences, etc.</p>
<p>Once the 40 finalists are chosen, they fly up to D.C. for interviews and presentations to pick the 10 winners. The interviews do address the project, but not that much, since the interviewers have already read the paper. Most of the questions are about various sciences (they're divided up in different disciplines) and intended to elicit creativity and depth of knowledge. Imagine waking up at 8am in a strange city to have Vera Rubin quizzing you about the properties of dark matter, or asking you to tell her everything you know about the various moons in our solar system! And this goes on for days, with Nobel Laureates and other experts in different fields. </p>
<p>For someone to get to the Intel finals with a project on which they got more "help" than the rules allowed, the adults around them would have to risk their professional reputations by lying about it on the letters, and then count on the kid being able to fool some pretty sharp individuals. </p>
<p>I agree though that it's tough for any interviewer to be able to tell whether a person is enthused about their answers or not, or is telling the truth. Unfortunately, some of the most remorseless liars are also the best at convincing others of their sincerity, and any number of personal and cultural traits could cause a child's real personality not to show through in an interview.</p>
<p>Some cultures socialize children not to make eye contact with adults, not to ask questions, not to brag about their accomplishments. Girls are often socialized to put the feelings of others over their own needs, and might well keep gloss quickly over something important to them if they think the interviewer isn't interested.</p>
<p>I don't know if colleges train alumni interviewers to take all these factors into account, but even with training, it is often very easy to judge others on the basis of how we would act if interviewed, and not how they would act.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Once the 40 finalists are chosen, they fly up to D.C. for interviews and presentations to pick the 10 winners. The interviews do address the project, but not that much, since the interviewers have already read the paper. Most of the questions are about various sciences (they're divided up in different disciplines) and intended to elicit creativity and depth of knowledge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is what I was referring to. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For someone to get to the Intel finals with a project on which they got more "help" than the rules allowed, the adults around them would have to risk their professional reputations by lying about it on the letters, and then count on the kid being able to fool some pretty sharp individuals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ditto.</p>
<p>This does not mean that having a dad working in a research lab was not a huge advantage, or that being able to brainstorm with dad was not also a huge advantage. But I don't know whether that should a priori disqualify an applicant.</p>
<p>HPY may not check out every single Intel or Olympiad, but there are those who keep up with those things, so the chances of getting caught are pretty good if you lie about finalling in those activities. There are news articles, and it appears that some of these "competitions" involve a small number of schools. Even if I were unscrupulous and wanted to cheat, I would not put that down on my resume if it were untrue. The top schools will not hesitate to throw you out even later if the lie were discovered.<br>
Where the lying often comes into the picture is through exaggeration of an activity or "buying" an activity (helping the poor in South America programs for $5k ) and disguising it as though you stumbled or organized it on our own. Parental involvement is also any area where things get dicey. </p>
<p>Though an interviewer may be able to tell if a person is enthused with the school and his activities, sometimes a kid who really is interested and involved just does not interview well. I know that our school tells kids to forget the interview unless required/highly recommended if the student is just not good interview material. I know someone who got an interview when it usually is not even offered, because of legacy connections. When he did not get into the school despite stats that put him in the running, Papa called to get a post mortem. The interview was one thing cited, when the school does not even do interviews for most kids! He just did not seem interested in the school. Knowing the kid, I can see what happened. He was a prime example of someone who should avoid schools with an evaluative interview and should not have interviewed where it was not necesary. Our counselors swear that it doesn't make one bit of difference in the results--interview/vs no interview for the top schools. Only if you flub it does it matter.</p>
<p>cpt:</p>
<p>I did not think that an applicant would claim to be an Intel finalist if s/he was not. Cur's query was more specifically about whether the Intel accolade was legitimately earned. And that involves digging. But we have all read about kids who legitimately write that they were captains of this or that, but whose classmates know they did very little in those roles.</p>
<p>Xiggi asks:</p>
<p>
[quote]
For what it is worth, could you please tell this forum how you did end up magically finding this thread for your first post, and then not hesitate to make judgments about the posting style of others. </p>
<p>What is your factual relation to this story?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I understand your curiousity or even suspicion here, but I would not blame someone who knew the kid in the article for coming onto the forum to profer opinions, while trying to stay anonymous. A real kid with a real name is being discussed here. Already one poster has informed the author of the article of this thread. It is not unfathomable that word has gotten to the family being discussed. I can't blame them or their friends for wanting to post opinions without identifying themselves in this crowd. None of us are truly obligated to provide our real identities here. Others can decide on the validity of posts based on someone's posts over time. A new poster can be doubted in any way you like. It's in the eye of the beholder. If I were a parent of this kid, I might want a friend to come onto this thread, as well. His real name is on it, just remember.</p>
<p>PS, I'm starting to pray that neither of my kids are profiled in some way in a national publication for doing or accomplishing something. It may not be worth it!</p>
<p>Abfalle, please check your Private Message and respond to our query regarding your multiple screen names. </p>
<p>Abfalle, well, thanks, I guess. I AM a parent and so there are certain tones that I have seen in this thread that are distasteful to me. I think there are issues worth discussing. I just am sensitive to that a real kid with a published name is being discussed. I prefer to see public comments more on the issues. I prefer to see any "dissing" so to speak, in private conversations. And for the record, I can't find anything to diss about this kid whom I don't know whose profile was pretty darn good, if you ask me. Apparently, several colleges thought so as well. His scientific research wasn't even his only endeavor or accomplishment. He surely isn't the only kid who through family or friends, came upon an opportunity to pursue his interest.</p>
<p>I have a kid in theater. She has no connections. But if I met some kid who got cast as a lead and the parent was the director, I'd think, yeah, the kid had some pull to get this opportunity. And if the kid was really bad on stage, I'd say, she wasn't too good and only got there cause of her parent. But if the kid really was talented and accomplished something in this endeavor, I'd still think well of her talent and her accomplishments and how the experience contributed to who she is as a person. I'd be more impressed with someone who got cast with NO connection, sure. But if the kid was good and really accomplished something, even if she had an "in" at the initial phase, I wouldn't think less of the kid.</p>
<p>Lastly, what I see in some circles that are very competitive, is that people want to find something negative to say about someone who has accomplished something that perhaps they themselves are also competing for. For instance, in April, on CC, on the student threads, I have observed kids question why so and so got in but they did not when their score or GPA or rank was higher or something of that sort. I've read put downs of those who got in. "Didn't deserve it." and so on. I'm feeling that a bit here too. Lots of analysis about his test score, his ECs and everything. Truly, this kid seemed likea solid candidate and he had decent college admissions results. I don't see the big deal about any of it. I'd be proud of a kid like that, frankly. I don't see why the knock downs, no I don't. In such a competitive atmosphere that I am finding in the discussion, I would not dare post my kids' stats, let alone their name!</p>
<p>
But I'm trying to broaden it to any stupendous fantasmagorical bestest ever _____________ whatever. </p>
<p>Example - In Texas we have huge competitions sometimes along with the fair, sometimes as a stand alone . Kids raise up prize animals and these critters are auctioneed off to drunk car dealers/home builders sometimes for 10-20 times their actual pecuniary value , as a reward for the kid and NOT limited to scholarships . I'm talking $20K steers and $5K turkeys. </p>
<p>Little Johnny will go out there with his lead rope walking his prize calf to the show ring. Now the bidders at our local show caught wind of the fact that momma had full-time custody of little Johnny and he lived over 100 miles away from where lil steven the steer was kept, Daddy's ranch where daddy was the owner of the foremost breeding operation around. Hmmm. Knowing that they decided to ask, how often is Little Johnny around lil steven? Now remember, the show (the experts) had already determined that little johnny's entry was in compliance with their rules and WAS ALREADY THE PRIZE winner. (Just like intel, USA Today)</p>
<p>But the people passing out the pesos smelled something and reacted by paying market (actually still payed two times market). It has crippled this wonderful opp kids had in this area to raise money for college. And here's my point- it killed it for EVERYBODY. </p>
<p>Should the bidders have not speculated on the fairness of little Johnny's entry and instead have accepted the decision of the judges at face value?</p>
<p>Could little Johnny's entry still be legit ? Yes but the market wanted to put that entry in its proper context . And it was something that they wanted to consider in making their bid. I think their actions were at least "reasonable" under the circumstances . Don't y'all?</p>
<p>Exactly. The most important opportunity lost was the opportunity for that kid to learn what if felt like to achieve something legitimately.</p>
<p>Btw...curmudgeon's post brings back memories. Growing, we never ate any beef that wasn't bought at auction at the local fair and livestock show, processed, wrapped and stored down at the local ice lockers. My dad use to make comments about those $50 steaks....lol...mmmm they sure were good though! Thanks for the walk down memory lane.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I would call a kid who got an opportunity in their parents' field through connections as "illegitimate". It is not lying. For instance, some kid might get to intern at the local newspaper because a parent is a journalist. If I were interviewing the kid, I would ask how he got the job. I'd also ask what he accomplished on the job. The accomplishments would still be worthy and legitimate. I would know how he got it and put it in that context. I would be more impressed by the kid who found the job on his own but it doesn't make the kid's articles he wrote for the paper where mom works illegitimate. </p>
<p>I interview kids about what career or academic interest they have and how that was developed. A kid may say she wants to be a doctor and she first was exposed because her uncle is a doctor in the ER and got her a volunteer job in the ER and from there she went onto do X and Y and now she really likes it and so forth. I'd not find this illegitimate. I wouldn't find it as impressive as some kid who had no connections. But even if a kid did get an opportunity to work with someone due to family connections, they still may have achieved something and still may have had a worthy background experience and it need not be considered illegitimate. Many grown ups get their jobs due to who they know as well. It doesn't illegitimize the work they do once they get there. If a kid has others verify the work they did on the job, it is enough for me. I will know the context of the connection but I won't think low of the kid that they were fortunate to have a way to obtain such an experience. Now, if parent did something FOR the kid and the kid had no part in it, different story. That would be cheating. There is nothing about the kid in the article that can lead anyone here to conclude that he cheated or did anything illegitimate, in my view. He did have access to opportunities that other kids may have had a harder time finding on their own. For all we know, he may have conducted his project independently once given the resources.</p>
<p>For the record, neither of my kids are going into fields that either my husband nor I are involved in or skilled at, that's for sure. I don't feel sorry for them for not having connections even if other kids have them. My kids are doing just fine on their own.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure I would call a kid who got an opportunity in their parents' field through connections as "illegitimate".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't and more importantly didn't say that either, susan.
Could little Johnny's entry still be legit ? Yes but the market wanted to put that entry in its proper context .
I made great pains to use a version of your phrasing , too.;)</p>
<p>I would like you to respond to the q's I asked though, if you would be so kind.</p>
<p>I live in an area that aggresively goes after the Intel competition, having moved here from an area that has maybe one semi finalist. There is absolutely no question that the same child would have a much better chance in doing well in this competition where there is a structured program put together with the goal of winning. Without that structure in place, it is very difficult to get far in this competition. I am talking about two areas that are very similar in socio-economics and in placement of kids in colleges including the most selective schools. When you see such a difference in outcome, you have to come to the concludion that this is not a fair competition from the get go. Yes, it is possible for a student to read the rules, research what needs to be done to get into the the running, and prepare for the interview. On top of that, the student needs to find a sponsor and keep him alerted to the winning protocols. When you see this blatant disparity in schools that have many entries and winners, vs those that do not, it is clear that opportunity is a major factor in this competition. This is increasingly occurring in competitions. For years it has been the case in non academic contests, where the coaching and preparation strongly affected the outcome, more so than the actual "talent". But things have really accelerated these days. The Rhodes scholarships now go mainly to kids from schools that actually focus on this award and prep the students through the process with coaches who are experts on the winning points. It hardly measures the candidates fairly. We see this now on the SATs , the essays and ECs. The coaching does make a difference. The question now is what the top academic institutions want to do to address this disparity. There are a number of awards and accolades that used to mean a heck of a lot more than they do today, and perhaps some of these awards that are now heavily coached will go down the same path.<br>
Despite all of this, however, I have to say that the kids from here who final in the Olympiads, Intel competition, etc, are highly qualified kids that would have had a good chance of doing well even with a level playing field. There may be some kids who have a parent hovering (and doing more than hovering)over their efforts who would not have been at that level with that parent, but I see here that it is rare that a dud makes it in the winners circle.</p>
<p>Also, what do you expect a kid to do if they have a genuine interest in a field and it so happens that their parents are also in that field? For instance, say a kid wants to be a filmmaker and the parent works in the industry. The parent may know of a resource or mentor for the kid to contact. Once the kid obtains that opportunity, it doesn't mean the kid cheats once he is there and illegitimately has someone else do the work for him. He may create a demo film on his own but have access to resources some other kid didn't have. He is a lucky kid. His accomplishments are not illegitimate. He simply had connections that helped him obtain an opportunity. And sure, a lot of our kids don't have connections and have to find opportunities on their own. My kids are like that. They don't have sour grapes about it and they don't think it is unfair. They can comment that so and so's parent got them this or that job, but that's just the way it is.</p>
<p>I meet kids who are great pianists or singers and their parent is a piano teacher or voice teacher. Is that now illegitimate? I say lucky kid. Mine had to get help from others outside the home. I have a kid in sports and some other kids she competes against have parents who are coaches. Oh well.</p>
<p>Curm,
You wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure I would call a kid who got an opportunity in their parents' field through connections as "illegitimate".</p>
<p>I wouldn't and more importantly didn't say that either, susan.</p>
<p>I would like you to respond to the q's I asked though, if you would be so kind.</p>
<p>Sorry, I was not clearer. My response about "legitimacy" was to a post by ldmom06 about achieving something legitimately. I was NOT responding to anything you had written with that remark.</p>
<p>About your questions, I thought I had addressed them already in a post or two earlier (such as post #203). More than that, I don't have much more to say. As it is, I have posted way too much on this and am shirking the real work I MUST do!</p>