<p>Please, please, please bear in mind, though: whether or not your project wins a prize isn't necessarily indicative of its merit. </p>
<p>I worked on my project for 9 weeks over the summer, and heartily agree with the quote that
[quote]
kids in bio (esp molecular bio or biochem) research understand what they're doing because they're probably reading a LOT
[/quote]
I have a 3-inch binder **stuffed<a href="literally,%20it's%20out%20of%20room">/B</a> with papers I've read, which doesn't even touch on papers I've read on the computer, textbooks I've gone through, etc. I love biology. It's always been fascinating to me.</p>
<p>With that in mind, working in a lab all last summer was like a dream come true. I had my own little side project in the lab, and while it certainly had its ups and downs (we think our cell line mutated...) it a) gave me invaluable experience in the lab and b) showed me that I really do want to go into research for the rest of my life. My project didn't win a thing, but I honestly don't care. I learned a lot, I wouldn't have traded that summer for the world, and I'll probably remember it when I have a lab of my own someday.</p>
<p>THAT is what you should be looking for in a research project. Passion comes first. Prizes are secondary.</p>
<p>A great resource is "Science Buddies" at <a href="http://www.sciencebuddies.org">http://www.sciencebuddies.org</a>". Once you're on the webiste, check out the student blogs. Specifically, read "How to be Successful at a top Science Competition" by Amber Hess, who is a current MIT student.</p>
<p>For DS, the research was the critical part. He thought it totally cool that he came up with an interesting result on his own. Whether or not it won any awards was irrelevant to him.</p>
<p>He's another one, who, while not in bio, spent much time reading on his own and learning his field. He's been reading stuff in his particular subspecialty for the past two years (though has been very involved in the overall field for far longer than that), but it was just about a year ago that he felt he had the tools to start trying to do research.</p>
<p>If you're interested in winning Siemens/Intels, all I can say is that getting Siemens semi-finalist / regional finalist or Intel semi-finalist is all about the paper...and let me tell you that I know kids from my school who spent 8 weeks w/ a college professor (mentor) and win by barely even doing anything. They spent most of their times playing on the computers and doing menial tasks for the professor, and then just wrote a 20 page paper that was literally puffed up and made professional by the professor at the end. </p>
<p>That is not to say however that all the winners are like this. I'm sure the Siemens national finalists & Intel finalists actually spent tons of time and effort in their project and are truly outstanding students. I'm just pointing out that winning the lower categories (which are still considered excellent to put on your resume) is possible as long as you have an excellent mentor willing to help edit and polish your paper. </p>
<p>So yeah, I'd start by either applying for RSI or finding a mentor. Just go contact some professors in the subjects you're interested in (bio, chem, phys, math, environmental, psychology, etc.) and ask if they can be your mentor/tell them about your plans.</p>
<p>What folks don't seem to realize is that a Siemens Regional Finalist for an individual project is one of the top 30 in the country. There are six geographic regions; five Regional Finalists from each. Siemens National Finalists represent one winner from each of the regional competitions.</p>
<p>It is structured differently from Intel.</p>
<p>The kids we know did their own work. It was abundantly clear that they did so. Some work in a lab, but a decent number of Intel finalists work independently. Some subjects lend themselves to that approach more than others.</p>
<p>Coming up with a project isn't the hardest thing for me. It's coming up with a -winning- one that's hard.</p>
<p>The one thing you need to keep in mind is making it unique.
If it's been overdone before, no one will care unless you significantly improve it.</p>
<p>Think of new angles, new ways to look at something. This year I took the typical "how does music improve the mind" project and twisted it into a physics- and differential-equations-based analysis. Find a category and topic you're passionate about. I wanted to do Biochem this year because I heard it was very prestigious; the competetors were few but strong in their subjects, so if I did it I could probably at least get to State fair. Then I realized I hated biochem... and knew nothing about it.</p>
<p>I also think working independently on high-level research is a major plus. It makes judges impressed to hear that you managed to force specific mutations in fruit flies to engineer them to fit their environment... without the help of any mentor (one of my friends in Biochem this year).</p>
<p>oops, gotta run. I'll add more for you later.</p>
<p>I just want to agree with something that's come up a bit: WINNING TOPICS ARE NOT ALWAYS THE BEST TOPICS. In my region/school/even state's fairs, there is quite a lot of politics going on.</p>
<p>^ True, but never let that discourage you from actually doing your research to the most thorough extent possible. Whether you actually win something or not is entirely after the fact (and therefore should not be your driving nor hindering force). Horribly cliche, but true. (And also, this isn't meant to be directed towards anyone in particular, but it's just advice from a hopelessly nostalgic person in general).</p>
<p>Ya I wouldn't pick a physics topic unless you really know what you're doing. I'd say biology/o chem/environmental stuffs are good choices if you're eager to win.</p>
<p>^ agreed. Physics projects usually have a tendency to do really well in local/regional fairs, but once you get to either state (if you have a huge SEF in your state like Cali/Texas) or Intel, then it's like, "holy crap. I didn't know this was such serious business."</p>
<p>I did Behavioral & Social Sciences this year and won best of fair. TOTALLY wasn't expecting it - do NOT do Behavioral unless you have something completely unique, because it's -very- rare that Behavioral projects get sent.</p>
<p>I would suggest Engineering, Environmental, Biochem, CompSci, or Microbiology if you're really aiming for ISEF.</p>
<p>Well, I am just a Sophomore, and I feel that ISEF projects involve AP Bio AP Chem and AP Physics stuff. I haven't taken these, but I will be taking AP Bio and AP Physics B by the end of Junior year. Starting a project then would be late, wouldn't it?</p>
<p>From my experience, AP science classes don't help at all. I know many people who have had their mentors come up with projects, but personally, my ideas have all been the result of nothing more than extensive extensive extensive (how much can I emphasize) literature review.</p>
<p>Interesting analysis here about the perceived "easiness" of bio/chem projects. If one looks at the projects that make Siemens Regional/Intel STS Finalists, there are a ton of bio/chem projects. Our local area tends to run heavily in that direction, too. Our experience has been that the competition to get to the top rungs in bio/chem is VERY tough -- everyone seems to gravitate towards those projects, probably because it's easier to get lab facilities.</p>
<p>Ditto with above poster on the usefulness (?) of APs for science fair -- it's the literature, folks. Read, read, read.</p>
<p>^^ @wtrbear: I totally agree with you there, but also don't let NOT getting chosen for something like ISEF discourage you, or make you feel that your research was not worthwhile. Don't do the research for the awards (though if you do, I COMPLETELY AGREE with the suggestions for bio/chem projects); if you think it's interesting and have great ideas, even if you don't have the awards, you can write about your experience and ideas for future research on college apps and get into great schools. I think ideas for future research are actually really key here - schools want to admit people who will continue doing great research in college. Where "Great" does not necessarily means "Wins high school awards", but could also mean "has potential for solving real problems" or for being recognized at higher levels (i.e., in college/grad school/beyond). I honestly don't think, at least in my region/state, that the projects that are given awards and that qualify for ISEF are always the ones with the most interesting science or potential for impact. That has just been my experience with science fairs.</p>
<p>I'm fairly certain that -all- ISEF participants or want-to-be participants will have taken honors or AP science classes, so while it may be helpful in creating a -good- project, the odds of it contributing to something that -stands out- is very small.</p>
<p>I didn't use AP material in ANY of my projects - all of it was outside learning and investigation, and you should do the same =) Go look around at the science databases that are available online, take a look at some abstracts of groundbreaking research currently being done, and good luck!</p>
<p>I was the ISEF representative for my state when I had not
done a single AP though I had read quite a few papers on arXiv
and was an avid basement/garage experimenter who breoke things
and found out how they tick ;) Also the MIT OCW is a good place
to get great reading material if you know what you are looking for.</p>
<p>I am not sure the ISEF in itself is that much of a prestigious thing
for applicants. I felt the Intel STS on top of Siemens
makes a big difference and actually publishing ones research
makes a very big difference.</p>
<p>Maybe you do your research and convince someone to okay your publishing
it on arXiv. Hey, if the proof for Fermat could be done there first it should be
good enough for anyone.....?</p>
<p>One way to keep count of where you are could be the amount of hard cash
you win. Not the "$30,000 a year if you go to a specific school"
kind of award but cold hard cash/US bearer bonds with no strings attached.
he he.</p>
<p>A lot of students work with science faculty, either because they live within driving/bus/commuter train distance of a university or because they participate in a summer program at a university. The titles that look totally unfamiliar to a high school student may well come from this kind of faculty-student collaboration. It is worthwhile to the faculty member, because many are concerned about developing interest in science in the next generation. Often, a grad student or post-doc will work most closely with the high school student, to reduce the demands on the faculty member’s time. </p>
<p>One of the students who place fairly high in Intel worked with a faculty member at my university. As soon as I heard the title, I could tell which faculty member he had worked with, and I could also trace the intellectual provenance of the topic back to 1953 without looking anything up. That is not to say that the student was not deserving. In fact, he was very smart and hard-working, and he wound up accomplishing some significant research. On the other hand, he was certainly pointed in the right direction by a faculty member. </p>
<p>In a number of fields, with some mastery of basic material at the AP level and the ability to read scientific papers, you can put together a reasonable project while still in high school. </p>
<p>In fact, at many universities, the Ph.D. students have the general outlines of their projects suggested by their research advisers. They have to problem-solve and trouble-shoot along the way, and if they are observant, they may spot a really interesting direction themselves, as an offshoot of the project that the professor suggested. This may become the major portion of their Ph.D. theses. But scientists don’t tend to work in a vacuum. Even the faculty interact a lot, and often have multiple collaborators (as well as some things they explore more or less alone).</p>