<p>The gifted young scientist or mathematician can appeal to an extensive infrastructure of competitions to challenge herself. Siemens STS, Intel STS, Intel ISEF, AME, RSI, the list goes on.</p>
<p>The gifted young philosopher or historian...not so much. Yes, there's TASP, there is National History Day, there are essay contests, but none of these command the instant recognition that the science/math competitions do. If I hadn't joined CC, I would never have heard of any of them.</p>
<p>Two questions:
1) Why is this so? I myself can think of chief reasons. First, a mind for the humanities requires experience in humanity. A precocious mathematical mind can manipulate postulates and theorems without wondering how those theorems affect another human being; even the most precocious mind, in history or literature or applied philosophy, must know certain elements of human psychology. We can only think deeply about human experience once we have acquired human experience. Second, judgment of ability in the humanities can be far more subjective than that of ability in the hard sciences and mathematics. What do you think?
2) What exactly are prestigious accomplishments in the humanities. By prestigious, I mean things that would be considered "hooks."</p>
<p>^ I'm too lazy to respond to that entire post, but I'll throw in an anecdote haha. I heard about some kid who got an article published in the Harvard Law Review as a high schooler. That would obviously be extremely legit.</p>
<p>I don't know the answer to your question, but I do know that I would benefit from an opportunity merely to shadow a humanities professor the way a high school student nowadays would a professor of science. I want to study literature in college and probably in grad school as well, and I would love to see the process of developing a real, substantive thesis. But I think it's different because it's such an individual process. I have no idea. Instead I've been writing, which is enjoyable all the same. I do think that in the humanities experience is more essential than in the sciences. That is not to say that doing lab work doesn't require experience, but I think methods in criticizing literature vary more widely than, say, methods in testing for acidity (really crude example as I'm not really sure what they do in labs).</p>
Humanities require experience and learning, as opposed to cognitive brilliance.</p>
<p>For example, you hear of math geniuses but not philosophy geniuses.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I hate to take issue with someone who agrees with me ;), but I disagree slightly.</p>
<p>To be a world-renowned scholar in some humanities requires no less cognitive brilliance than in math or science. Richard Posner or John Rawls come to mind. I would say the requirement of both experience and brilliance differentiates the humanities from quantitative fields.</p>
<p>You do hear of philosophy geniuses. They have names like John Locke and John Stuart Mill. But they tend to have already graduated high school. Perhaps what you meant was "you hear of math prodigies *but not philosophy *prodigies?"</p>
<p>The humanities are so much more subjective than math/science things, which are much more quantifiable. Besides, how many breakthroughs in philosophy were accomplished before age 30? How many world-renown novels were written before the author turned 30? Because Karl Marx had that huge Santa Claus beard when he came up with communism (humor me here, please). I think the humanities are much more based on first building yourself a respectable reputation within the community before becoming truly renowned. I mean, unless you count like Joan of Arc as accomplished in the humanities, but, um..yeah, lol.</p>
<p>Especially in the realm of writing (my particular strength), there's no way to quantify that you're the *n*th best writer in the United States. It's not like the AIME.</p>
<p>And I completely agree about the experience thing. It's virtually impossible to write a truly groundbreaking, unprecedented piece of literature without spending years looking at the world and at mankind/human nature. Dostoevsky could write ridiculously brilliant, introspective stuff because he, like Marx, had spent years analyzing what he saw (and growing out his bushy, intellectual-looking beard :D)</p>
<p>P.S. It is one of my future aspirations to grow a long, white beard like that and to stroke it thoughtfully whilst smoking a pipe and muttering "hmmm...indeed." lol</p>
<p>As a very humanities-oriented person who has often voiced the same grievance Cato91 has, I'll toss in my 2 cents.</p>
<p>To excel in the humanities, including literature studies, history, philosophy, etc., requires a level of critical thinking that can't really be measured in any effective way or taught in the way that a math skill can be taught. Look at the SAT - you can teach someone the math skills tested on the SAT so that they can replicate the steps for each problem (that's the only way I get through math, anyway...) but you can't teach someone to think critically overnight. I think that experience can help someone improve his/her critical thinking skills, but I believe that such abilities are rooted in natural ability and inclination. On the other hand, math and science skills can be taught and, depending on the person, learned relatively easily.</p>
<p>Where I'm going with this: it is more difficult to test or measure natural ability in the humanities; therefore, there are very, very few contests for young philosophers or historians. As a writer, I go for the essay contests, but I also have a great interest in philosophy/history/religion. I think college is really where you can gain recognition in those fields. High school isn't really a hotbed for that kind of intellectual thought. :-(</p>
<p>You've answered the biggest part of your question yourself....Siemens, Intel, etc.--these company sponsors are interested and willing to invest in programs that will help them to develop and recruit a new crop of scientists, engineers, etc. You just don't have that for the humanities, which tend to be more academically inclined and have less practical application.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with intelligence or values, just economics.</p>
<p>science itslef is innovative and it is one of the few things that might allow people to start challenging themselves, that doesnt come across with humanities</p>
<p>I agree on the college thing, gg026. When the average US adult is reading at less than a 10th grade level, how are we to expand our intellectual horizons through thoughtful discourse and writing while only in high school?</p>
<p>However, I disagree with you on that math/science can be taught more easily than critical thinking. I believe that math/science can be taught just as easily as critical thinking, but schools rarely emphasize the importance of teaching critical thinking skills at an early age, and teaching teachers to teach (sorry for the awkward wording lol) critical thinking is a lot harder than teaching them to teach math/science.</p>
<p>It's a the premier publication for high school history writing, and you also get your stuff read by profs at all the top schools, which endorse it (HYP...omg)
And the stats are rediculous..."Many of our authors have sent reprints of their papers with their college application materials, and they have gone on to Berkeley (6), Brown (21), Columbia (13), Cornell (13), Dartmouth (12), Harvard (87), Oxford (10), Pennsylvania (15), Princeton (45), Stanford (26), Yale (70), and a number of other fine institutions, including Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Caltech, Cambridge, Chicago, McGill, MIT, Reed, Smith, Trinity, Wellesley, Wesleyan, and Williams."</p>
<p>nice! Are there any awards though? For history essay contests or such?</p>
<p>EDIT: I checked out the site, and for a paper to be accepted you must have a really good essay and $40. I don't want to lose my money, so is there anyone who could help me with an essay?</p>