<p>What makes Intel and Siemens so prestigious - the money they give? Just because they have a long application does not mean anything. It is quite interesting that the programs from where most of these finalists are - RSI (MIT), Stony Brook, etc. How come other universities are not producing these winners? Are other labs and professors just not able to mentor or the students are just not smart enough? If you think deeply you will see that something is strange. This is very similar to Wall Street where people feed each other.</p>
<p>I personally feel that Intel and Siemens are doing an excellent job in marketing their awards. For many students that I see it is the college admission frenzy that is driving them - not the real love for learning and research. I will not say that all students fall into this trap but reading the posts in MIT blogs and College Confidential I am realizing that. I would like to hear from admission officers on this.</p>
<p>RSI is probably more selective than MIT, it is not surprising that many Siemens and Intel finalists come from RSI. Admissions for Stony Brook is a bit more based on whether one contacts a professor there beforehand or if one has connections to the university, but people admitted there are usually reasonably solid. Nevertheless, a lot of people from Stony Brook become Siemen’s semifinalists because their professors help them a lot on their projects and have well-funded labs. Intel is much more holistic than Siemens, which is why Stony Brook produces relatively few Intel semifinalists.</p>
<p>Yes, Intel and Siemen’s awards aren’t perfect. The winners of the respective competition often were just fortunate to have interesting data and an interesting project to begin with. Nevertheless, colleges don’t have much criteria to evaluate a person with. Everyone has reasonably high grades and SATs. Some people can BS “personality” and “personal potential” into their essays fairly easily, so colleges can’t place too much importance on these. All they have left to look at are ECs and awards.</p>
<p>We had far more Intel/Siemens participants apply than we did admit this year. Some Intel/Siemens participants did get in; many (most) others did not. What you are suffering from is called an [“availability</a> bias.”](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_bias]"availability”>Availability heuristic - Wikipedia) We do value those awards because they provide externally verifiable evidence that those students are balling researchers. We also value people with terrific LORs or who make cool things too. </p>
<p>@pizzafatface and others- </p>
<p>We do not have quotas, secret or otherwise. Every student at MIT deserves to be here. Full stop. I’m sorry you are upset that you (or your child, or someone you knew, or whatever) were not admitted, but as I’ve posted elsewhere, I stop short at forgiving demeaning admitted students as a sort of salve for that particular wound. I do wish y’all luck wherever you end up.</p>
<p>My perception is based on what I have read on the blogs and the people I have known who have been accepted to various colleges. It is quite evident that colleges prefer students that have won these awards. A student who has been part of a lab doing research for which data will not be available for a few months is unable to participate in these competitions. Therefore this student would not have “externally verifiable evidence” besides a recommendation letter. That is exactly my point. The reason I have brought this up is because we need to find a better way to understand the capacity of a student. The goal is to make this world a better place and create the next generation where people teach each other. What many of these competitions are doing is for students to somehow get ahead and the whole purpose of research is being lost. </p>
<p>For the opportunity to participate in Stony Brook a school can nominate three students (if I am correct). There is one teacher from my school who nominated students and unfortunately some students never had that teacher. This example is just to prove my point.</p>
<p>@mystory: You are actually wrong about this. The reason a lot of people from RSI and Stony Brook get Intel/Siemens is that they are already selected to be among the best of all students. Correlation does not mean causation: RSI doesn’t get you Intel, but because RSI picks out the best applicants in math/science, they are more likely to be successful in their research and hence win the award. Intel/Siemens is more of a meritocracy than any other application process out there - you cannot win unless you have an amazing project. While it’s true that many smart students do not have access to a lab to be able to do these projects, you cannot discount the abilities of the people who do win. You are right in the sense that some students who have amazing mentors are not willing to release their data to Intel - but you have to discuss this with your mentor BEFORE you undertake the project. I think mentors would at least let you mail the paper or an abstract to the school, especially if this is YOUR project.</p>
<p>Imagine if you’re a college admissions officer. You have two applicants who did research. One has won Intel, the other just subtlely mentioned that he wrote a paper that analyzed XXX. If you could only choose one, who are you going to pick? Obviously the guy who won Intel, because his Intel award is testament that his project is not a random high school chemistry paper, or one written by his dad but with his own name pasted on it. Maybe the second guy also had a great project, but there is no proof of that. When MIT has plenty of Intel winners to choose from, they don’t have to take that risk.</p>
<p>Who says you have to go to Stony Brook? I did my research at Texas Tech. I had no connections at all - I applied to Clark Scholars and got in on my merit. Obviously there will be people who take the easy route, but it is possible to get in the door on your own. And those people are the ones MIT will take. I think your thinking about this the wrong way: if you complain on CC every day then you’ll never be able to put in enough effort to succeed on your own. Start taking this matter into your own hands - if you are really passionate about doing research and have the stats to back it up, nothing’s stopping you from doing research.</p>
<p>To those who were not accepted,
I know you feel disappointed. You have all the right to be upset, but as many people said if you are good enough, you will excel no matter where you go. There is no complete fairness in this college admission game (yes it is). Those students who live in rich people areas have great advantages in this game, they have better resources and more opportunities while those who live in rural areas have never heard things such as AMC, Intel, etc. But when you are in the colleges you will have better resources and opportunities, if you work hard enough, you can be whatever you want to be.</p>
<p>Great job to you if you did it on your own. I just wanted to make a point. I do not wish to get into a debate on this as it will not be very productive to take everyone’s time on this. </p>
<p>Would you please define " among the best " of students in the light “it’s true that many smart students do not have access to a lab to be able to do these projects.” </p>
<p>Also, my point is that people do research projects for the competition and not for the value of research - “to discuss this with your mentor BEFORE you undertake the project.”</p>
<p>My son has never entered a research science competition. He did not get into RSI. He did begin graduate level optics research the summer after his junior year at the local state univ. The progress has been really slow because of the equipment but they are finally beginning to roll this spring. We’ll see how far he gets before heading off to college in the fall.</p>
<p>His prof/mentor at the univ. wrote an incredible letter of recommendation based on my son’s being the top student in two senior level physics classes, as well as his optics research. My son was also a tutor for a senior level physics class at the university. </p>
<p>My son feels very fortunate to have been able to do all this for free (he audited the classes at the university). He had no connections to the univ. The professor was just kind enough to let my son come and audit the courses after contacting him. Since my son is homeschooled and had taken all the physics classes at the local community college by first semester sophomore year, he was looking to find some other interesting physics classes for his last two years of high school.</p>
<p>My son was admitted to MIT. I don’t know whether he’s “among the best” of students. I do know he’s a lover of learning, he’s curious, he likes to try many different things, and he’s been successful at a national level in several ways. No, he didn’t ever enter research in a competition, so I’m glad colleges look at many different factors when admitting students.</p>
<p>My understanding, MITChris, was that iceu2 was saying only Intel winners (or someone with equivalent credentials) get into MIT and that MIT (or another institution), if having to choose between two candidates, one that was an Intel finalist and one that did research but did not enter the Intel competition, that MIT would choose the Intel winner. Being that (I think) you said MIT turned down some Intel winners leads me to believe what iceui2 said wasn’t quite accurate…but perhaps I’ve misunderstood his and your point.</p>
<p>I think that very rarely does it come down to only differences in research quality or experience; there’s no reason why they cannot accept both applicants like your son and the Intel finalist. I think what iceui2 was trying to say is that Intel finalists are attractive and will probably have an advantage over someone who does not have such a distinction because the external validation does exist, but it is by no means necessary to gain admission, as in your son’s case. Like you said, there are plenty of other factors like essays, grades, and recommendations against which to judge applicants.</p>
<p>I’m not saying that MIT won’t take students with significant research experience just because they didn’t do Intel. You actually validate what I said about being able to do research without having connections. I was trying to rebute mystory’s claim that MIT only takes people who do research via connections.</p>
<p>@mystory: RSI only takes 80 people per year. There are more than 80 “smart people” in this country. Same applies to MIT - they can only take 1600 per year, but there are many more that are qualified that they simply don’t have spots for.</p>
<p>How are wait-listed applicants doing? What are you plans for the next couple of months; hope for admission from the wait list or decide to fully commit elsewhere?</p>
<p>[ b]Stats:[ /b][ list]
[ *]SAT: 2290 (CR 770, Math 800, Writing 720)
[ *]SAT II: US Hist 790, Math II 800, Chem 800, Bio M 800
[ *]GPA: 3.9ish
[ *]Rank: 5/450ish
[ *]Other Tests (AMC, AP, IB): AP Chem, US Hist, Calc AB, Stat, Compsci A, Bio: All 5’s</p>
<p>[ /list][ b]Subjective[ /b][ list]
[ *]Essays: Common app: 8/10, Supplements: 6 or 7 out of 10. They were mostly cut and paste, but maybe I’m being modest
[ *]Teacher Recs: Should be great, didn’t really get to see them.
[ *]Counselor Rec: Should be excellent, I’m probably one of her favorite students.
[ *]Supplementary Material: Didn’t send any
[ *]Hook(recruited athlete, legacy, Nobel Prize): None. Antihook: Asian male with no exceptional EC’s going into engineering :’(</p>
<p>[ /list][ b]Personal[ /b][ list]
[ *]Location: PA
[ *]High School Type: Public
[ *]Ethnicity: Asian
[ *]Gender: Male</p>
<p>[ /list][ b]Other[ /b][ list]
[ *]Extracurriculars: Nothing special. Orchestra, Mock Trials, Electric Car Club, Intern at a chem lab for 4 years (my strongest one probably. Sent in a pretty good recommendation from that)
[ *]Awards: Distinguished AP scholar, National merit finalist
[ *]Advice? Commiserations? Feel like bragging?:[/list] Congrats to all those who got in!! I really mean that from the bottom of my heart. Whatever will be will be :D</p>
<p>I think that the reason an intel person would be chosen over someone else would be that they had enough passion for their project to compete in the various competitions, and MIT recognizes this drive and passion. When I called MIT after doing well with intel my admissions officer was really interested in hearing about my project and how excited I was about my research, and none of the other college admissions officers would even talk to me. I know everyone already said this but they really are interested in seeing how much a student’s research means to them, and showing that passion through competitions does matter and set you apart from other students.</p>