<p>I am in a similar situation as jeli25’s son; i have spent the past summer working with the head of the sociology and oral history department at Columbia, on a very meaningful project. My work has been at the graduate level; often involving me to meet with the department chairs and consult many academics. I am in the process of publishing a sociological article on the social implications of narrative networks, and have been working extensively on this. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, i have also encountered a difficult conundrum; how am i to voice my extensive academic research skills/abilities/accomplishments without sounding too pretentious or presumptuous? My top choice is Stanford, and you had mentioned that Stanford has a supplemental essay in which one can discuss this - where and how? I have perused the application and have been unable to find this (unless you are referring to the essay option about an intellectually vital experience)…</p>
<p>^yeah as i recall i think research experience would be most applicable to the intellectual vitality essay. good luck, you’re going to need it. getting into stanford is near impossible.</p>
<p>OK, here’s another research scenario. This one’s historical research.</p>
<p>I’ve done 3 research papers for National History Day. They’re quite short (2500 words) because of the contest requirements, but I’ve been told by accomplished historians that they’re graduate level in quality. All 3 are published; the best one won 1st in the nation at the History Day contest.</p>
<p>Sending it in as a supplement: Yale specifically says you can send in a supplement; what about others like Cornell and Penn? If I just drop a paper in the mail (correctly labeled of course), will they look at it?</p>
<p>Advisor recommendations: my advisor was my former 8th grade humanities teacher who continued to work with me on my papers for the next several years. So that doesn’t quite qualify for the standard teacher evaluations, and it’s not like she’s a PhD. So do I submit an extra rec from her? Again, there’s Yale that specifically says that you CAN submit extra letters, but it’s “strongly discouraged” unless there’s a “need, in isolated cases” to submit a letter “that will add substantially” to the application. I haven’t been able to find anything about extra letters to Penn or Cornell. Advice? This advisor absolutely adores me, knows my writing and research abilities inside and out, knows my personal qualities, and has seen me mature academically and personally over the past 4 years.</p>
<p>^ Wow, if you won first in nationals, you should definitely highlight that in your application in big block letters (figuratively speaking). </p>
<p>If the school doesn’t expressly prohibit sending in extra material, I would send it in, since it’s only 2500 words. It would be awesome methinks if you can send out the official published version rather than the copy on your computer (ie. copy it from the history journal directly and label it clearly with your name, journal name, date of issue, vol. issue, page number, and all that good stuff). If you choose to send it in, also be sure to send a cover page with your supplementary material saying: Name, DOB, SS#, and a list of what you’re sending in to them.</p>
<p>As for Advisor Rec, I’m not sure whether you need to send it in to Yale, it’s really your call. But if she’s going to say a lot of the same things that your teachers would say (esp if you go to a pretty good school and have pretty good teachers), then I would skip it. For me, I sent my advisor rec to all the schools that didn’t expressly prohibit sending in extra recs just because my research advisor on an entire different caliber than my school teachers, and I thought he could add to my actual academic abilities better than my school teachers (who generally commented on my personality, methinks) could.</p>
<p>If the work is published, you should cite the reference in your list of accomplishments. That should do it since publication in a professional journal would certainly highlight your research for the admissions officers to take note. The other highlight is the work having won a prestigious national award. I think superlative is in good shape. Of course if the school allows submission of research, by all means do it.
It is a different problem where you have worked extensively on research that has not been published and has not won national level awards.</p>
<p>And not every 2008 Intel STS finalist was accepted to Harvard, so being a finalist is not the be-all, end-all hook some might think…</p>
<p>Piccolojunior, yeah, I know we’ve discussed this before. Every year there’s a new crop of folks who want to know what the deal is/isn’t, though… :)</p>
<p>regarding if winning a competition is a true manifestation of the significance of the research: well, it doesn’t have to be so. Personally, i find it extremely weakly thought if someone is doing research for the sole purpose of getting a hook. Research requires tremendous amount of time commitment and passion for the subject is a definite must too! and then even in HS…a lot of students who get to do research are exposed to it in their junior year…so, it can be pretty hard to meet the requirement of Siemens, Intel, etc. on time.</p>
<p>curious77: Interesting. My work is in public health as well, and epidemiologists adore mathematicians with an understanding of their field. He has a promising future :D</p>
<p>shore: I would say the difficulty of finding a mentor has less to do with the quality of the university and more to do with the size. In that case, finding a research mentor at a lower tier public university can be no less difficult than finding one at an elite private university if there are 100 other undergrads clamoring for the opportunity to work with this professor, especially if he’s doing “sexy” research.</p>
<p>adrivit: First, I disagree that having research that is not published or has one nationally recognized awards is a “problem.” Only small fraction of undergraduates applying to GRADUATE SCHOOL have publications; I would imagine that the fraction of high school students applying to college with publications is even smaller. While we do have a lot of whiz kids in here who are making extensive contributions to papers, the vast majority of high school students simply don’t have the technical skill to make a contribution that would earn authorship credit for a publication.</p>
<p>Anyway, I can think of two solutions, which can be used independently or together:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Don’t include the entire 20±page research paper with all the field-related jargon. Instead, condense this into a shorter paper of 2 pages or less that summarizes the work, your role in it, and the impact it has had on a) you, as a person, a student, and a researcher and b) the future of science in your field. Graduate schools use such an essay to evaluate their applicants for admissions.</p></li>
<li><p>Solicit a recommendation from your research advisor (if the school allows). Have them comment on their work, your role in it, and how they believe it has prepared you to be a student at the school(s) you desire to attend. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>ProjectStanford: A lot of grad school applicants worry about this too Just tell it like it is, no embellishments. It’s an application meant to showcase your abilities, so showcase them, no worries!</p>
<p>My paper on Euclidean rotations of planar objects on the Cartesian plane (a fancy name for rotating geometric figures around) didn’t even make Semis for Intel STS AND Siemens Westinghouse.</p>
<p>I was still admitted into MSC, and wl’ed at HY.</p>
<p>I personally think to show that you put the effort and the time into your research is demonstrating outstanding motivation, even at the very selective colleges. Publishing/earning national prizes are only extra garnishes that improve your chances.</p>
<p>However, I feel then, to show that “you put in the effort and the time,” the research advisor rec becomes important. I felt my advisor rec was able to highlight my role in the research much more than a Semi at STS or Westinghouse would demonstrate (my project was entirely self-initiated and hardly required any guidance from my advisor or anyone else - I felt this was significant since a lot of projects that win competitions are basically spinoffs of work the professor/grad student/supervisor had already done).</p>
<p>It really depends on your field and how good your research is. If you’ve done research, then you’ve obviously reviewed the literature. If you’ve reviewed the literature, then you know where the literature is published.</p>
<p>Try sending it to some of those. Getting it published in something that is clearly a journal so that people can say “Yippee! I got published!” is not going to be very impressive, nor should it be. Getting published in a professional journal, however, is very impressive, as it should be.</p>
<p>Of course, if you have a mentor, he would be most helpful with answering that question, as well as with issues of formatting and submission. There are many subtleties to the submissions process that only professionals know.</p>
<p>yes exactly…ur mentor is the person to consult…if u have worked on something soleley by you without ANY mentors/supervisor..then I’d say u hv to be rlly rlly stellar (considering u r just into HS while there are researchers with experience of decades working on the very particular topic) to hv sum research of that quality to be published professionally.</p>
<p>My opinion (applies more to scientific research since that’s where my experience is):</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Research w/o a publication, conference, or award is a nice EC and is certainly worthwhile; however, you really need some sort of third-party substantiation to get the full worth out of it from the adcoms; sorry, that’s just how academia works. </p></li>
<li><p>I, personally, would value a first-author publication in a high-impact journal over an Intel award. I know Intel awards are more rare but you’re still just competing with HSers. Publication in a peer reviewed journal gives your research legitimacy from actual academics, phD’s, and scientists. Of course there’s no reason why you can’t have both (if your research is good enough).</p></li>
<li><p>Emailing a full copy of your research paper is worthless. Honestly, no adcom wants to read it. Med schools expressly advise applicants against sending research papers. I’ve been on many interviews and only rarely have I been asked about the actual details of the research. What’s more important to emphasize is what you learned and what kind of skills you’ve developed through the actual process of conducting research. If you want to send something, send a rec and/or an abstract.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t think emailing professors will do much to help your admissions chances. Unless you won an Intel award or got published in Science, you’re not going to be recruited in the same way a stellar athlete would be. Most professors are just looking for a dependable and passionate undergrad to run their gels or take care of their mice. They get more than enough applications from qualified undergrads. They really have no reason to go out of their way to make sure a HSer gets accepted. Once you get accepted into the college, it is a very good idea to email professors in order to get a research position. Before you get accepted, not so much.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^i agree, most professors are just PIs anyway and don’t actually do the lab work. they just have post docs or grad students do the research and then they have high school volunteers to run westerns all day…you have to work your way up the research hierarchy.</p>
Just tell it like it is, no embellishments. It’s an application meant to showcase your abilities, so showcase them, no worries!</p>