<p>actually i dunno about which one being more legit..intel or siemens. They're two completely different competitions that evaluates the applicant in different ways.</p>
<p>emperor, who were you talking to?</p>
<p>Well actually, if Harvard needs one mathematician, no offense to pengshi but they'd take Michael Viscardi ;) The kid is far and away doing the best math research in the country, and in the end, a passion for math should in the future lead to research. USAMO isn't an indicator of that, but Michael's work is. But damn, pengshi is up there!!</p>
<p>And what you say about Siemens may very well be true. I tend to agree, Siemens is the competition until Intel (and I wouldn't be shocked if they're waiting even for Intel results to make decisions on some of us, hence the deferral). And I hate to sound cocky, I really do, but if Harvard wanted even one astronomer, I think it should have been me. This year especially, there seems to be a real dearth in high school students doing great, publishable astro research. This year I am the only high schooler presenting at the AAS (American Astronomical Society) meeting, when normally I'd be one of a few (although I'd still stand out due to my first authorship on that, I guess). All astro research projects should by all reason, I think, be submitted to Siemens, and only one besides mine made regional finals--and I'll be honest, the other one seemed like it showed some nice initiative, instrumentationally (building a telescope or something), but I saw very little publishable research value in it. It was more of a high school project than a graduate-level project.</p>
<p>Wowww. I ramble :) lol but it does disappoint me (despite all my blaring egotism, lol...jk) that I'm one of so few students in the country--maybe even the only one--doing this level of astronomy research. Maybe things will be different for Intel, but this year seems to be a low year for HS astronomy research. So I wonder if Harvard actually keeps the needs of its astronomy department in mind when doing this....</p>
<p>In terms of judging, STS is more legit.</p>
<p>Adam, I hate to say this, but there are plenty of people at RSI that do stellar astronomy research. RSI ends quickly, however, so it is cut short. But I doubt you would be past top 10 as far as astronomers go.</p>
<p>JCR is right--Intel and Siemens have some fundamental differences. At the national recognition dinner a couple of weeks ago a Siemens guy (I forget his exact position) sat at my table and he asked me what I would do to make the competition better, and I told him: lift the restrictions on the types of projects that can be entered. Siemens is an inherently better competition than STS (Intel) in concept. It is based JUST on research and your knowledge of your field, nothing more. Intel is basically a college app with higher focus on research. So if Siemens had the same competition as Intel, it would be THE best overall indicator there is of HS research success.</p>
<p>Also, ISEF is international and has far more applicants initially. Millions compete from more than 40 countries. I think 16 win categories. The projects all have large real-world implications. About a thousand enter Siemens. The projects are all esoteric.</p>
<p>And you would be surprised by the number of people whose mentors do virtually all of the work. If you compete at a Junior Science and Humanities Symposium, you will see. 90% can't answer technical questions about the research.</p>
<p>I do agree that STS is prestigious though.</p>
<p>
<p>It's REALLY QUICKLY! THat's the ONE grammatical error that makes me want to strangle people!
</p>
<p>Don't mind me, I'm just rambling.</p>
<p>zogoto--You could be right. I wouldn't know. I judge only on what I see. None of these people are making regional finals of Siemens, and none of them are presenting at AAS, which is really the biggest conference in the country. Sooo...I'm not doubting you, but what are all these people doing?</p>
<p>Adam, what restrictions does Siemens have? If anything, it is looser than STS since it let's underclassmen participate. For some reason, it still gets only 1/3 the individual projects.</p>
<p>tupac--You won't make it past regionals at Siemens if the work wasn't 100% yours. They give you a grueling Q&A session in private to make sure you know every single little detail about both your work and the field in general</p>
<p>
[quote]
Congratulations on spitting out the thesaurus you ****ing idiot!!! I can't believe people like you got admitted to harvard at the expense of people like zogoto and spydertennis. Whatever, you may have succeeded at getting into a good school but you still sound like a dumbass.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't believe I was admitted in the stead of people like zogoto either.</p>
<p>But spydertennis...that's another story. You need to read more of his old posts to understand my opinion.</p>
<p>And, just as an fyi to some people: when you have exhausted ways to attack other people, do not resort to such tactics as disparaging their verbal skills through references to, say, thesauri. It only reveals immaturity on behalf of the atttacker.</p>
<p>Adam, they just didn't have the chance to finish.</p>
<p>Tupac, (and Adam too), the point of the college app is NOT to assess past acheivement but to predict future acheivement. Usually past->future works, but as far as scientific talent, Siemens/STS reveal more than ISEF, and people not finishing projects at RSI and thereby not doing well at Siemens does not mean they aren't good astronomers.</p>
<p>Underclassmen can only participate in the teams. Individuals are all seniors at Siemens. And they have no research allowed involving humans. No psych, not a lot of bio projects, etc. 10 people entered Intel at my school this year, only three could enter Siemens.</p>
<p>True, but regional finalist alone is quite high at Siemens (about 30 nationwide right?). If there were more at the regionals, I would consider it more legit.</p>
<p>Judging from my observation that 90% of students who "do" lab work don't understand it, maybe one student from each regional competition really did the vast majority and understands it.</p>
<p>Doesn't the greuling STS application deter some people? It is sooo easy to submit to Siemens; I have a hard time believing that the restrictions don't account for the lack of essays, etc.</p>
<p>Tupac, why would it be more legit then?</p>
<p>well a project doesnt have to emphasize real world applications to be a good project</p>
<p>and yes, there are probably people who have their mentor do all their work and enter in siemens...these people usually don't get very far in the competition.</p>
<p>zogoto, I never said they were bad astronomers. But not finishing their research (and if they were so passionate for it, why would they just stop when the program ended, anyway?) means that their research potential is more difficult to probe than someone who's publishing papers and doing full research projects. But maybe this is just my bias, so sorry :(</p>
<p>BTW, tupac, I really resent you saying that people who do well in Siemens have their dads find them mentors. Most people work really hard to find mentors. I took 13 months of endless trying to get one, including two visits to Columbia, one to Yale, a few to Stony Brook, Hofstra, etc., of just knocking on people's doors trying to make contacts. I didn't have the necessary physics background to do real research so I took physics that summer at a local CC, just so I could get the background necessary to do research. Please don't underestimate Siemens competitors...</p>
<p>You worked hard to find a good mentor, but some people had connections.</p>
<p>But by regionals and especially nationals, such people--the people who have connections, who don't work hard, who don't know what they're doing, who take credit for their mentors' work--are weeded out so quickly.</p>