<p>I think you should change ISEF (1-4) from being an 8. </p>
<p>I think places 1-2 should be a 9 because last year, there were 109 people in all categories who received a first or second place award. From these, unlike in STS or Siemens, all were not juniors in high school (planning to apply to college this year, I know STS/Siemens people are seniors, but they are applying to college during the announcements). It is really impossible to tell, but assume 1/3 of the ISEF winners were juniors. That gives 37 people with a first or second place award, which is less than the 40, who receive STS finalist. Also, I want to feel important with a 9 :)</p>
<p>I think ISEF best of category should probably be a 10 because there are 17 categories, and if you assume at most half were juniors, about to apply to college, then that leaves 9 people, less than the top 10 STS finalists. Also, I think the ISEF top 3 should just be taken out because that would be like 1-2 people each year, who are going to apply to college that fall. This year, I know at least 2 of the top 3 are not applying to colleges this fall, and the best of category being here would replace this.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think places 3-4 are in the right spot at 8. However, I would not put ISEF finalist as a 7, I would probably do 6. As someone said earlier, this is often a regional decision, and while the vast majority of finalists have done solid research, there are still a few that aren’t so great.</p>
<p>Also, you put publication in Nature/Science as a 10, but I would put publication in some other journals as a 10, and quite a few more as a 9. </p>
<p>I know this doesn’t really matter, and this is just my opinion, but based on the numbers, I think those changes would make sense. It doesn’t make a ton of sense to me to group the top 8 or so people with the top 150-250 people (assuming from the same grade).</p>