<p>Southerncharm, you have a well-chosen userid. That’s the way you do it. Kudos. </p>
<p>Haha, well thank you IxnayBob.</p>
<p>@southerncharm95.</p>
<p>Bravo to you!</p>
<p>This is a great example of what distinguishes a lot of these students - they are motivated, resourceful and take initiative - coincidently all great attributes of a researcher.</p>
<p>I just wanted to add this comment for students who might be considering a STEM career in a field that is not so easily accessible for research at the high school or even the undergraduate level: That is not an insuperable problem–research can wait. </p>
<p>If you are in a field where you need to acquire a lot of background in order to contribute to research, it is completely fine to spend your time acquiring the necessary background, rather than conducting an accessible research project outside of your area of main interest. There are fields (quantum field theory, for example), where I think that it is necessary to have at least the background of an advanced undergrad in order to make heads-or-tails of the research literature. (For that matter, there are faculty members at research institutions who can’t read the research literature very far outside their own areas of expertise.) If you are interested in a field like this, and you have prepared for it, no Ph.D. mentor will turn you away because you didn’t test water quality and you didn’t run mice through mazes as a high-schooler.</p>
<p>I raise this point because it can be dis-spiriting to a person who is not yet doing any research, when everyone else seems to be participating in research, including the high-school geniuses in theoretical fields as mentioned by collegealum314. There is nothing wrong with maturing scientifically/mathematically first. In fact, you may wind up with a broader scope than someone who specialized early–no guarantee of that, but it could happen. </p>
<p>[10 char]…</p>
<p>Not to suggest that collegealum314’s high school geniuses haven’t matured–with a stroke of luck or good advice, high school students can identify a mathematical topic that is under explored, and that they are equipped to handle. Then there is always the random Galois.</p>
<p>I’m guessing that collegealum314 would agree with me, about some specific fields?</p>
<p>I agree with all of Qmech’s points. I considered myself someone who was willing to do anything to show I had future promise in science, and I chose not to do research in high school even though it was available. And I was interested in fields where it was feasible–bio and chemistry. Instead, I spent my spare time doing academic competitions in pretty much every field as well as various extracurricular activities. </p>
<p>I did know people who won major awards in high school research. While I stand by all of my former points on the value of said activities, I have never thought it was a great predictor for future achievement in science, or at least not better than other non-research science competitions (although I have heard that making the Intel finals has been correlated to winning the Nobel Prize). As I said, most often the kids winning these things don’t generate the central ideas themselves, and that is what makes or breaks a professor once they get past all of the technical competence it takes to even get that job. </p>
<p>However, as I also emphasized, the kids have advanced on the long road of becoming an independent researcher. It’s a valuable tool to them, and they may have generated some useful data for their research group. </p>
<p>It was different when we were in high school. What kids show by getting involved past the school curriculum and club activities is a different level of vision and follow through. Initiative, follow-through, commitment. Many kids do generate useful data or serve some useful purpose for the team (sci environment or not.) Even back up work is helpful. But the colleges are looking for the sorts of kids who realize, in the first place, that all this is about more than just being good in class and joining a few hs activities. And, in the broader view, like it or not, it’s about more than pursuing only what “interests” you or will serve you in your profession.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Professors don’t always generate the central ideas themselves either. They work with others, go to conferences, read a lot, have lots of discussions, arguments, explorations with others and out of all that exposure and thinking an idea may emerge. But that didn’t happen in a vacuum and was not generated by the prof by themself. </p>
<p>Besides, who ever said that a winner of these contests is equivalent to a professor who has maybe 20-30 years more experience?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, I do research so I know all this. You’re preaching to the choir here. All I’m saying is that the professor identifies what the hole is in the literature based on a thorough knowledge of the literature, and then bases their research program and individual projects based on this. Most often the kids don’t have the knowledge base of the literature to do this. Sometimes they can suggest some ideas for things to test that are good ideas, but the vast majority of intel semifinalists aren’t going to propose an idea that could be the centerpiece of a 5-year grant. What I’m saying is even those who don’t generate the idea themselves still gain valuable skills and learn how science (or whatever field) is done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason why the OP and others question whether high schoolers are really “doing research” is that they assume that the these high school research awards imply that the high school students are at the level of a professor.</p>
<p>Occasionally, that is the case but most often not. When I was in high school, one guy won Westinghouse (now Intel) with a math project. One professor not connected to the project said it was not only original, creative, and an important contribution, but that it looked like it had been written by a mathematician with 30 years of experience. (The guy is now a prof at Harvard.) So it does happen. But these people are rare. </p>
<p>What do you mean when you say “it’s about more than pursuing only what ‘interests’ you or will serve you in your profession”, looking forward? I am not sure what “it” refers to, nor what “more” is. It seems to me that admirable personal qualities can be developed and demonstrated through a wide variety of experiences, of which “research” is only one possibility, and not likely to be the best one. </p>
<p>Just wanted to add another few remarks: As far as generating useful data, or making any useful contribution goes, I believe that is strongly field-dependent. A faculty member friend of mine used to say that he lost ground with every Ph.D. student he took (educational effort vs. research pay-off) and just broke even with the post-docs. (Addendum: It’s probably relevant that the friend was a Harvard professor.) In my area, taking a high school student or an undergrad into the “lab” (which I do) is essentially entirely an educational/service effort by the professor.</p>
<p>While fluffy2017 is certainly right that ideas are not conceived in a vacuum, they still occur in one mind at a time. I’ve heard of the idea of an “Einstein Award of Order n” where n is the number of additional years that it would have taken for another person to come up with the same idea. Although one anticipates that a good idea will eventually occur to someone with a receptive mind, it is not so uncommon for n = 10 or so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see that assumption.
There are a lot of people who do research who are not professors.</p>
<p>I think the point is that in research, like life, you need to walk before you run. And getting back to the OP, how these young scientists make their mark is much more a function of hard work and diligence than luck or better connections.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It only elevates a candidate at a top 10 school if they did really well in a competition. But I take issue with the characterization that it pegs the applicant as a “gamer”. Anyone seriously interested in a science career expects to do research at some point; it’s not strange for some of them to get an early introduction to it.</p>
<p>I’m not a parent. And what part of this thread talks about forcing your kid to do research? This thread is about what high school research means and doesn’t mean, because people always seem to be incredulous that high schoolers can meaningfully participate in research.</p>
<p>As for doing it to impress adcoms, as I said it doesn’t impress elite adcoms unless you do really well on it. Even making the semis at intel only adds a small amount to a typical competitive candidate. You pretty much have to make the finals for it to actually be very helpful. So, for that reason, you do it if for your own development and because you want to do it. I still don’t understand why it has to be eye roll inducing. For kids that are seriously considering a career in science, it is a good use of time.</p>
<p>Playing soccer doesn’t help you get into ivies either, unless you are actually good enough to be a recruit. It doesn’t mean it should induce an eye roll. And let’s all acknowledge the elephant in the room–community service. How many kids who do community service in high school ever do it as an adult. I’d say that, of the kids who engage in high school research, the percentage do something tech-related as adults is higher than the correlation between high school community service and adult community service.</p>
<p>No you just claim your mom wrote your applications…■■■■■ </p>
<p>And the number of kids who gain financial advantage thru athletics far surpasses those doing research.</p>
<p>It is very rare for high schoolers to get research positions without connections. This was definitely true of my high school. We had so much homework every night that even though lots of kids were into science, very few did research even though there was a top university ten minutes away. Most other students don’t even have any opportunities in their area.</p>
<p>I don’t feel I missed out by any means from not doing research in high school. I started the summer after freshman year of college in an experimental physics group, started in a theory/computational group spring of sophomore year and have worked there since. I have a first author publication in arguably the top journal for theoretical physics. I also did an REU last summer and am working on a first author paper from that. I am choosing between three of the very top physics PhD programs.</p>
<p>Even for undergrad research, my experience is considered outstanding and got me a fellowship at Harvard given to the top six applicants as well as one at another top five school. I couldn’t have done this work in high school, theoretical physics usually requires a lot of graduate coursework, which I started my junior year. I don’t think there is any reason to try to rush things in research. It’s a very nonlinear process which requires a very strong foundation in order to be original. I met some high school students in a high school program during my REU this summer. From their presentations I could tell that even though they knew how to do various experimental techniques, they lacked the foundation to really understand what they were doing. However in some fields with a faster learning curve this may be less of an issue.</p>
<p>All of the high school researchers I know got their ‘connections’ --read opportunities-- by asking and knocking on lab-doors (usually repetitively). The idea that these kids are somehow “gifted” research spots and ideas by who their parents/teachers know is unfair and somewhat insulting. I believe most high school have athletics (which is a good thing)–no reason why some of that time and energy can’t be directed to research-type programs or positions. And dare I say, there are MANY more STEM-related jobs than professional athletes!</p>