<p>But the thing with the failed simulation effect is that it’s so hard to accomplish. I mean, it obviously won’t be easy, but how does one figure out if a field would be rewarding enough to allow for a “failed simulation effect” project?</p>
<p>Do you guys thinking having research as my main EC is wise? I’m expecting a publication by the end of 2014, and I’ve got a research internship at Columbia lined up over the summer. If I get into RSI (probably won’t happen LOL) that would be even better.</p>
<p>Research could work. If you can get yourself to a point where you’re doing serious work, not just washing dishes, then that’s impressive…so if you like where your experience is heading, go with it. Something like “huh, this person has a publication and gave a talk at a professional conference” could count as a failed simulation, and you seem to be on your way.</p>
<p>Overall, I’m a strong advocate for not doing busywork. If you’re not kicking butt at it (or paying dues on your way to kicking butt at it), or it’s not fun and relaxing, don’t bother. If anything, I should have been more ruthless about this back in the day. I started high school with a bunch of random activities - literally made a spreadsheet to make sure I covered all the possible EC categories, so I would be well-rounded. And I made it about a semester before throwing my hands up in disgust. But one of the activities (Science Bowl) really struck a chord with me, and I threw myself whole-hog into academic contests, something I didn’t really even know about before. It worked…though I’m not sure I would recommend contests to someone for admissions purposes, unless they had a strong affinity. Contests don’t lend themselves to taking initiative, which makes them harder to do in an impressive way. (The contests exist, you either win or you don’t, but if you’re just participating then it’s a harder version of school.)</p>
<p>For my research, I was lucky enough to get a professor who let me spearhead my own project as long as it had some ties to his laboratory. Not trying to be cocky, overconfident, etc., but if my work is successful (looking at a 70% success rate), I’d most likely get at least semifinalist at something like Siemens. I’ve seen what types of projects win these competitions, and my project fits into all those criteria. But most of all, it’s fun :D</p>
<p>I wish I could enjoy debate/mock trial more, but the coach at my school is an idiot who can’t organize anything, so we’re not doing any competitions. We’re going to one tourney this week, but our principal’s said that’s the only one we can go to. It’s making me really angry, so I’m thinking about leaving the team.</p>
<p>Well, guys, at least y’all have american citizenships. To participate in IBO or even in NBO in my country is extremely complicated, and the fact that makes it even worse is, I study in America.</p>
<h1>8 - A and C repress each other, so when C is inactive A is present everywhere. B is unaffected, and still only found in the “middle two”. Thus, A/AB/AB/A is the observed pattern, or Sepal-Petal-Petal-Sepal. Info on this is in one of the Campbell chapters on plants (I think the one on plant hormones).</h1>
<h1>9 - 4/1000 is close to 1/256 = (1/2)^8. This suggests that there are 8 alleles involved in the determination of plant height, and each dominant allele increases height by (36-12)/8 = 3. Thus, 27 would have (27-12)/3=5 dominant alleles and 3 recessive. This means ((1/2)^8)(8 choose 5)=56/256.</h1>
<h1>25 - It CAN’T be autosomal dominant because neither of the parents shows the disease (and thus, neither would carry the requisite allele), so the child couldn’t have it. It CAN be autosomal recessive if they’re both carriers. It CAN’T be X-linked dominant because if a male child had it, the mother would have to carry the allele (and thus should show the disease). It CAN be X-linked recessive since the female can be a carrier, thus passing on the recessive allele to the affected child.</h1>
<h1>38 - tbh I have no idea why specifically it’s stratified columnar. However, since the urethral tube is under a fair amount of stress stratified makes sense (simple squamous is only found in alveoli, anyhow). Stratified squamous is pretty much only in the skin. Between cuboidal and stratified columnar, cuboidal makes more sense to me. But this way you can at least narrow down to two choices.</h1>
<p>@Windowwasher - The AP 9th Edition is what was given out at camp, so it either it shouldn’t make a difference or the AP Edition is better. The links on the website are eh, esp. compared to the textbooks. Use those for background stuff. Honestly textbooks are your best bet in general though. </p>
<p>@BeanDelphiki - seeing as though you’ve had more experience with USABO then most, how much time did you dedicate to it last (this?) year? Thanks for your expertise haha.</p>
<p>Thanks so much BeanDelphiki! I just have one question about your explanation: for #25, the affected child is a female, so if the disease were X-linked recessive, wouldn’t the father have to be affected as well?</p>
<p>I’m not really sure how much we have to memorize for the cladistics and phylogeny charts. Do we have to memorize all of the phylums and classes for Protista, animilia, and insects?</p>
It’s why I took AP exams, despite, well, not taking AP classes.</p>