<p>Adam, most MIT/Harvard professors are far too busy to pursue a "long distance relationship" (haha :P) with their students, especially if they are in high school It is very difficult to continue, especially with a mentor is reluctant.</p>
<p>Tupac, I too resented that but kept quiet. I did independent research for 4 years (7th-10th) before I finally got a mentor, which I got by knocking on doors. I then won my first Siemens award (Regionals) which gave me some credibility, so it was easier to get my 2nd mentor in an unrelated field, which led to my second Siemens award (seminfinalist) and ISEF Finalist status. In NO case did I have my parents help me out or anything...</p>
<p>I think that the more extensive STS app does make it more legit, because if a mentor wrote the paper, a lazy student still wouldn't go through the long app process. Also, I think STS is more legit because they consider things like test score and EC's that can also be helpful indications of science talent. For example, if I claimed to be a fantastic microbiologist and scored a 500 on the bio sat2, they would know it was a lie.</p>
<p>And yes, Tupac, you are underestimating the Q&A of Siemens. It is nothing like the ISEF questioning, which is more like a conversation between you and someone who doesn't really know what your project is about. Siemens judges have read your paper many times, are professors, and its basically like 10 v. 1.</p>
<p>But even if someone whose mentor did the peoject for the most part progressed to the top 30 in the competition where he was weeded out, the competition is flawed.</p>
<p>Tupac--Your SAT score and ability to write essays speak NOTHING of your ability to research. STS is not a pure research competition, as Siemens and ISEF are.</p>
<p>EDIT: And if a student's mentor wrote the paper and this student submitted it to Siemens, I see no reason why he/she would not submit it to Intel either....and plus after seeing Siemens I really don't think very many students at all, at least ones with really good projects, are just recycling their mentor's work.</p>
<p>And zogoto--I forgot that RSI was long-distance. Still, that there are so few astro research projects at publishing levels, it just....ehh, I don't know. I don't see how an AdCom is supposed to pick out the people who just did some astro research over the summer because it seemed cool, and the people who have really been passionate about astronomy since their childhood and sincerely intend to go on to pursue a career of research. I tried to get that across in my application...maybe I didn't do it well enough?</p>
<p>Tupac, the reason STS is more legit than Siemens is NOT because of the essays and SAT score. Adam is right. </p>
<p>The reason it is more legit is because it is very well funded and applications are very well analyzed by very qualified people who have done this for a long time.</p>
<p>I have seen such projects. They were very complicated but the students clearly did not understand them.</p>
<p>And SAT is largely influenced by preparation. I thought the ISEF put me in a good enough position that I did not have to prep.</p>
<p>SAT2's are more about learned material. If one did not learn bio well enough to score well, he must not be able to do a complicated bio project.</p>
<p>But tupac, STS measures other things than Siemens. The two competitions don't say they go for the same thing. You have to evaluate each independently of what you see as "what science competitions should be." Differences in quality between the two boil down to judging.</p>
<p>Determining who has science talent is the purpose of both competitions. Siemens is more superficial in this determination. The competition does not look at how students have demonstrated passion with EC's, etc.</p>
<p>STS is exactly what the name suggests--a Science Talent Search. It is not a pure measure of the strength of a research project. Siemens is. ISEF is. Neither purports to measure science talent, both aim solely to measure the strength of a research project. Now, how each goes about doing that is different.</p>
<p>Personally, I think JSHS's way is best. Submit papers to see who presents on a very small regional level, then pick the best and send them through increasingly higher levels. The paper is involved, but the presentation is the biggest part and it weeds out those who didn't do the research themselves. Now take the JSHS model and apply it to Siemens. The best way is to add one level--semifinalist sends you to another competition from which five regional finalists are picked. Essentially, instead of picking regional finalists based on paper, pick them based on presentation. That's the way you build the ultimate science research competition ;)</p>
<p>lol this thread has become more of a which science comp pwns the other...</p>
<p>but speaking of JSHS, they choose the projects that are going to be presented based on the abstract/paper right? not the intent to submit proposal right?</p>
<p>~lol~ I know!! How this (d)evolved into that discussion beats me. But hey, it's heated ;)</p>
<p>And I believe yes, JSHS reads your paper and then decides on that basis who presents. Not quite sure what you mean by intent to submit proposal.........do you mean research proposal? Because if so, a paper is about 20 steps beyond the intent to submit a proposal :p</p>
<p>Actually, Adam, I strongly believe that Siemens is based on the Q&A more than anything (the presentation may not even matter). For evidence, IM me sometime; I probably can't talk about that here ;)</p>
<p>Tupac, maybe you think Adam and I are biased. There is a member of CC (RSI'05) who is essentially an "ISEF kid." 2nd place twice got him into RSI, and Best of Category in physics will get him into college (even though he also has a Siemens award for regionals). He is even more strongly a supporter of STS, saying that "STS >>>>> Siemens > ISEF."</p>
<p>Adam, I just realized that you are from NE. That region is so competitive for Siemens since they break the competition down into regions that there is no way you can be deferred from Harvard, especially if you won regionals. </p>
<p>(The reason your region is competitive is by looking at STS, something like 70% of the semifinalists projects come from NE. These are the best projects/kids. When you add the restriction of region, then what happens is NE becomes ridiculous (specifically NY), and other regions are easier.)</p>
<p>I would make sure you emphasize your location and competitiveness of Siemens in your letter to Harvard.</p>
<p>Oh, no, I totally agree. The presentation means little. When I say presentation I meant including the Q&A. The Q&A, by the way, for those not "in the know" (hehe), serves to purposes: to make sure the student knew what (s)he was doing, and more importantly, to probe the limits of his/her background knowledge.</p>
<p>By the way, when we compare STS to Siemens and ISEF, what do we base it on? Research, or science aptitude in general?</p>
<p>The JSHS way probably is the most legit. However the national competition is not. The military guys that judge it are quite biased.. But I don't want to get into that (I wouldn't want to reveal my plans for winning it this year to the competition, lol).</p>
<p>I guess I am a bit biased though as I find competiting in person more amusing than competing with a paper.</p>
<p>I'm also too pompous, but I guess most science/math winners are. I'm not like this in person...</p>
<p>By the way, I'm not quite in NE. NY is just outside NE and we are part of a separate region for Siemens, called Middle States (the individual winner from New England, by the way, placed one ahead of me at Siemens nationals, so maybe it's good I'm not in NE! lol). Middle States, by the way, encompasses NY, PA, NJ, MD, and DE, and every single regional finalist was from NY (the majority from LI in particular), so yes, easily one of the most competitive science research areas in the country!!!!!</p>
<p>Last year, of the 300 semifinalist, 81 were from LI, and 151 from NY in total. 50% + 1 -- that's a majority in the Senate :)</p>