<p>Could you at least comment on the stock show /Little Johnny situation- I worked pretty hard to come up with that (so we wouldn't be caught up in colleges and intel and specific kids) and it would be a shame to let it go to waste. At least to me :(LOL. (Yeah. I need to clean the barn but it is sooo hot. You are right. We both need to go do our work. This probably won't resolve anything anyway. )</p>
<p>I think we are all agreed that there is no equality of opportunity. f I were an adcom I would view an applicant from Applachia differently from one from Long Island. We can agree that it is not "fair" that the kid from Appalachia does not have the same opportunities to do science as the kid from Long Island or Manhattan. But let's say a kid who claimed to be passionate about science, lived in an area with plentiful opportunities to do science research but did not do any research--that would raise a red flag with me. </p>
<p>I really don't know how much the father helped the son in his research. Perhaps some, perhaps lots, perhaps too much. But I am not surprised that the child of a research scientist would be inspired to do science. How many lawyers have parents who were lawyers? doctors whose parents were doctors? profs whose parents were profs? </p>
<p>So how should adcoms react to the application of a student who has some science awards and writes down that his/her dad is a scientist? Ideally, each and every application should be scrutinized more carefully. But from a purely practical viewpoint, I think it will be really difficult to do so without a lot more manpower and lots more time. </p>
<p>In the case described by cur, fraud was evident (though perhaps not to the judges). If there was fraud, the decision should have been rescinded. Olympic gold medals have been taken away; I don't see people clamoring for eliminating the Olympics.</p>
<p>cpt, regarding post #219...this is so true. Nobody in my neck of the woods would ever even have head of the Intel competition. I certainly had not heard of it until I read people refer to it on CC some time ago. I recall in fall of my older D's senior year of HS, her guidance counselor must have come across a mailing to high schools about this science competition and handed the mailing to my D as a suggestion of something she may wish to look into (she excels at math and science and was tops in her class in these areas). When I saw the hand out, I smiled and laughed a bit knowing the GC, whom we do adore, would have no idea the level of that competition and that students had started a LONG time prior to fall of senior year on it. </p>
<p>There is a national arts competition, that again, we never heard of through school. But I heard of it...where else....on CC. I told D2 about it and she entered it. She actually won a national award in her area of the arts. However, many many award winners had gone to performing arts high schools and schools where there were more winners, and came from states where there were many winners. In the dozen of so categories of the arts, there was only one winner in any category for our entire state, that year (my daughter) and none this year. She just would not have been exposed to it if I hadn't heard of it here. She also was not prepped by anyone who is familiar with this competition. She was preparing material for college auditions and used some of that to make a submission to this national competition that is well known (winners names are sent to colleges in her field). So, yes, some kids have more exposure, more connections, more help, more whatever. It is what it is. Kids from here would never have that kind of prep or even knowledge of these national competitions at our rural public school. </p>
<p>Curm, I don't know what to say about the livestock thing. I don't see it as the same as the kid in this thread. We don't know that anyone did his research FOR him, only that he had access to an opportunity because his dad works in the same field. He had connections, but it doesn't mean he cheated. The story you told doesn't sound kosher (probably not the best term under the circumstances, but you get the picture!)</p>
<p>"I'm talking $20K steers and $5K turkeys."</p>
<p>Now I know how to pay for my kids' college. Raise turkeys and find drunk auto dealers. </p>
<p>I would agree with you, curmudgeon, that those bidders had every right to rein in their generosity when the contest smelled fishy. The spirit, if not the letter, of the rules was violated. Just as Intel has been, IMHO. Since we've moved off on a 4-H tangent, I'd say these cheaters are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. xiggi's revelation about Dr. Cross, his research, the son's coincidental patent in the same field, the Intel award, the Navy connection....it all stinks. Paid off in a big way for the family, though. At least for now. Their downfall was their craving for publicity. I wonder if Duke will be thrilled if they are made aware.</p>
<p>I guess perhaps 'legitimate' is too harsh of a word. Or not. </p>
<p>Again, my issue is not with the Duke student. My issue, as I have said previously, is the broader issue of a parent doing the work for a child, as illustrated in curmudgeon's example of the ag project in his community. That is what I was referencing when I used the word 'legitimately'. </p>
<p>I do feel the case of the Duke student with an award winning project that is so closely tied to the area of expertise of a parent does merit more scrutiny by admissions committees. And perhaps it did get more scrutiny...and that is why Y and P passed on him.</p>
<p>I really think there is a cautionary tale here. Maybe several cautions to different folks. One that I know I will counsel folks about is the risk of allowing their kid to submit their work on something that you are doing, too - however separate the research may be in reality. If the kids are doing it for love or passion , they can keep doing it. Just do something else, too if you want to submit something- or at least know you will get dinged. </p>
<p>Even both marite and susan agree (I think) that they would consider the parent-in-the-same-field research "in context" and would find research w/o that relationship more impressive. I believe most everybody would.</p>
<p>cptofthehouse, I hear what you are saying about the role that school culture plays in success in the Intel. It's not fair that some kids have better education and opportunities in the sciences than others, anymore than the other disparities in the U.S. educational system are fair. Why do some kids have robotics kits and school-issued laptops with graphing calculators to use, and others (maybe equally talented) don't even get a math book or a chair to sit in?</p>
<p>I don't think we can ask the successful schools to do anything differently; they are turning out some remarkable young scientists, which benefits everyone in the long run. I don't know what the answer is, short of each of us launching a personal outreach effort to find kids who have potential for research in the sciences and making sure they have the resources they need to get the education and opportunities they deserve. We could reach 100 kids, maybe 200, but then what?</p>
<p>(For the record, D. was the first student from her school to ever make it to the finals, and the first from our state in nearly a decade). </p>
<p>Thankfully, the situation isn't getting worse for the Intel (though it may be for other high profile competitions). Last year, there were more states represented than ever before, and the girl who won, Shannon Babb, was from a state (Utah) that hadn't had a finalist in quite some time. Shannon had been working on her project for years; she found something that interested her in middle school, and just kept investigating it, eventually making a pretty important discovery. Her near life-long (and I think mostly self-directed) pursuit of her interest had as much to do with her winning as what she found out; the Intel looks more to future potential than past accomplishments, and she clearly demonstrated potential.</p>
<p>Geography plays a huge part in access to research opportunities; many of the schools that perennially send finalists are within walking or bike-riding distance of major research universities, so it's easier for kids to find mentors and work on their projects. It's more than just school culture, too, in New York City, there is huge community involvement. The kids get all sorts of recognition and support. Here (in Louisiana), outside of some very small circles, they get, "Intel Talent Search? You sing or something? Dance? Juggle?" </p>
<p>It's kind of funny now, but even after D. (who isn't Shannon of course) was named a finalist, she and I were so naive, we had no idea that the Intel was the same competition that used to be called the Westinghouse. (We thought Siemens was "the Westinghouse"). I found out by reading some of the articles that appeared online after the finalist selection. (D. only wrote up her research and entered it because the other kids in her clique were doing theirs; she never dreamed of being selected even for semi-finalist. In a different school or with different friends, even if she had heard of the competition, she wouldn't have thought it was relevant to her in any way.) </p>
<p>Back on interviewing, teenagers are really another species. Unless you know a kid well, you really can't tell if he or she is enthused about something or not. All you can tell is whether the child conforms to your expectations about what an enthusiastic person would act and sound like. If you look at interviews as a way to select students who fit with an image you want, that's a good means of accomplishing it. Otherwise, I am not so sure. </p>
<p>I've interviewed people for jobs, and the people who tell you how much they want the job, how badly they need it, how important it is, are often the ones who quit after two days.</p>
<p>Well, I've read through this thread, agreed with some points and disagreed with others. There's not much more to say but I do have just a couple of comments.</p>
<p>It's a shame to doubt any student's commitment to research or other ECs. They aren't all getting involved based on parents' positions or contacts. For what it's worth, my son did work in a research lab one summer. Although my H works in a technology field, he wouldn't have even known how to hook our son up with such an opportunity. (His job is intense, and he travels often. The college search stuff was up to S, with some secretarial help from me.) But our son went about contacting professors at local universities and found one willing to allow a HS kid to work in his lab. I will always be grateful to this person, since it does take significant time and energy to mentor a HS student. It really helped my son to see what research is really like, and cemented his interest in the field. </p>
<p>Even if the dad in the USA Today article helped the son find direction in his research, the kid still had to do the work! I have two sons, and I can promise you that there's no way they would do that kind of work if they weren't interested. It does take curiosity and dedication to work on such a project.</p>
<p>The SAT issues have been discussed too much for me to have anything more to say.</p>
<p>As discussed in this thread
"Engineering back door to elite colleges admissions"</p>
<p>if one were to benefit from higher engineering acceptance %, normally one should have a strong "engineering profile".
It's less convincing if a student were to apply out of the blue to an Engineering program without related interests/ECs/awards.</p>
<p>The USA Today student did not seem to have other science/tech activities in his resume, yet to win a patent on something very specifc (nuclear fuel cell)??</p>
<p>Go to any BSA pinewood derby, any soapbox derby, middle school science fair and it is USUALLY easy to pick out the entrants who have had excessive parent involvement.</p>
<p>As far as national competitions go, it is far more difficult to make that distinction. Essentially all entrants have had mentoring from a parent, teacher, professor or professional scientist and that is perfectly okay because research is a collaborative endeavor. However it is probably safe to assume that some entrants have pushed the mentoring relationship too far and should not claim the work as their own. Most national competitions have a Q&A session which can clarifiy such matters but it is not likely to be 100% perfect.</p>
<p>Because Jonathan Cross research did win several Intel Int'l awards, those of us looking in from the outside should give him the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>But in the end it matters not a whit because college and graduate school has a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. And as valedictorian of his class and the portfolio of other accomplishments, he has clearly earned himself a spot in Duke's Class of 2010.</p>
<p>".....And perhaps it did get more scrutiny...and that is why Y and P passed on him."</p>
<p>Give me a break!!!!!!!!! This suggests that Y and P are so much better at scrutinizing what??</p>
<p>For those on a different side of this thing than I'm on, (and there are twenty different sides) I believe you must think I'm irrational. I believe that because I keep thinking, "I must not be able to explain this to them because if I could they couldn't possibly believe what they say they do. That would be irrational. " I know some of you well enough to know that you are not irrational, but instead thoughtful folks. I have tried to take the people and intel and SAT out and I still get nowhere. </p>
<p>This my dear friends is an impasse and I believe it's one that we won't get past. I understand the topic perfectly and believe one thing. You understand it perfectly and believe another. That's O.K.. I won't try to shame you or shut you up. I would hope you would do the same for me, or if you have been shutting and shaming you would refrain.:)</p>
<p>But hey. To all sides, if you just like to hear yourself fighting, have at it. ;)</p>
<p>Since I related the circumstances surrounding my son's research opportunity, I feel the need to add a couple of points:
First of all, having a parent who works in some aspect of the field that is being researched doesn't mean the parent necessarily could have had any involvement in the project. For example, while my husband works exclusively as a clinical specialist MD, the lab research my son did was in a very specific and narrow area of physiology that happens to fall under the broad area of my husband's medical practice. But in no way did or could my husband have any involvement in it, since laboratory research and clinical medicine are very distinct worlds. But, if someone just heard of my husband's profession and heard about the project, they might assume that my husband could have had input (actually, it was my son who was explaining minute details to his Dad, not the other way around!).</p>
<p>It is common for kids to be interested in their parents' professions. My d. is following in my footsteps as well. But that doesn't mean that the research she did at Brown during high school had anything whatsoever to do with my connections. Anyway, for what it's worth, in neither of my kids' interviews, did anyone question how they got their opportunities. But if they had, there was nothing to hide---they could/would have been totally open and they felt the pride of ownership over their accomplishments.</p>
<p>Oops, I didn't realise you all were talking about the Intel Science and Engineering Fair, not the Intel Science Talent Search. From this link, I would give the kid the benefit of the doubt: </p>
<p>He worked part-time in the lab for over a year, and wasn't their only high school intern, so it's not like they set something up especially for him. Yeah, it does look like it might have been his dad's lab, or his dad's colleague's lab, and it could well be that the lab assigned him his topic. (Many research mentors do; some actually seek out particular students they have met at science fairs and other places to work with them on a certain project). But it looks to me that the kid most likely did his own work within the parameters they set for him. The people who judge the ISEF are experts in their field, and could spot it if the kid was faking (and there, the interviews are mainly about the project, IIRC from D.'s friend who went twice).</p>
<p>We could argue all day long as to whether he got the spot in the lab (or a more prestige assignment) over a more deserving kid who didn't have as good a connection. And I agree with the poster who said that it's probably better to have your child work in another field for anything he or she is going to do for competition, just to avoid the appearance of impropriety. But let's not forget that there's a long tradition in the sciences of families working together or children continuing a parent's work. Look how many members of the Curie family won Nobels.</p>
<p>I don't think it's fair to read Cross' not getting into Y and P as an aspersion on the integrity of his work. I can think of one of the Intel STS Top 10 winners who didn't get into everywhere he applied either. I am sure every school that looked at his application had no doubt that he is going to be one of the top scientists of his generation (a Nobel wouldn't surprise me), but for whatever the reason, a couple of schools picked someone else instead of him. Didn't hurt him, won't hurt them, but it obviously doesn't mean they thought there was anything untoward about his application.</p>
<p>Ha. I'm so far over on "the other side" I'm with, was it newmassdad and/or calmom?- excuse me if I'm wrong-- and think this kid has been so overpackaged he may even find himself in trouble in college. But, of course, it's really none of my business and personally I wish the young man the best.</p>
<p>"Give me a break!!!!!!!!! This suggests that Y and P are so much better at scrutinizing what??"</p>
<p>Well maybe or not. But to say the opposite is to say all colleges do the exact same thing. I doubt it. </p>
<p>I also feel like I've said all I want on the topic as well. It will always be the colleges' burden, or choice, to sort through the resumes of applicants for authenticity. And it will always be the parents' responsibility to make sure their children understand the importance of that authenticity. I've never intended to say anything other than this.</p>
<p>Cur: I agree with your post #226. Where I have reservations is the practicality of scrutinizing applications not just to find out whether the applicant did earn the award as claimed (not too difficult to find out) but whether the applicant actually did the bulk of the work. There are so many awards that can be earned in so many different fields that I believe it would be impractical to do the digging, however much one might think it worth doing. </p>
<p>Several years ago, our family was entranced by the story of Sarah Flannery, the co-author with her father of In Code. She won numerous accolade for her discovery of the Cayley-Purser algorithm She now works at Wolfram Research. Here is how the Wolfram website describes her:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sarah initially undertook to explore the science of cryptography in the fall of 1997 during her Transition year, after being introduced to the topic in a class called "Mathematical Excursions" taught by her father at the Cork Institute of Technology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In her book, she and her father make clear that a lot of family life revolved around solving math problem at meal-time. One could say that Sarah had a huge advantage in having a mathematician as a father. Yet, I don't recall anyone raising the issue of authorship. And her subsequent career at Cambridge and now at Wolfram confirm that she is indeed mathematically talented and did deserve the accolade she received.</p>
<p>I do not see prima facie evidence that Jonathan Cross got more help from his father than Sarah Flannery got from hers. I can see why some might be skeptical. But this skepticism is based on speculation rather than absolute proof. Some might decide, on this basis, to pass up on this young man; others might decide that the SATs were not a good gauge of his real abilities. Absent more evidence, it seems to me that either position is just as valid as the other.</p>
<p>hh, but on this one you and I are in agreement on parts at least, and that is a rarity worthy of note in and of itself.;)</p>
<p>
I think I may cry. Or marry you. Do you have room for a bigamist in your life?</p>
<p>Common ground feels so nice beneath my feet. I can live with all of this: </p>
<p>I do not see prima facie evidence that Jonathan Cross got more help from his father than Sarah Flannery got from hers. I can see why some might be skeptical. But this skepticism is based on speculation rather than absolute proof. Some might decide, on this basis, to pass up on this young man; others might decide that the SATs were not a good gauge of his real abilities. Absent more evidence, it seems to me that either position is just as valid as the other.</p>
<p>Cur:</p>
<p>This is my very first experience with internet flirting. Wow, better not show your post to my H!
Oh, and you're too young. :)</p>