<p>@quantmech</p>
<p>Sorry, my wow had to do with the line of discussion about the “rigged” accusation. </p>
<p>It seems you can’t delete a post and can only edit it (what am I missing?).</p>
<p>My comment was not directed at you nor @lookingforward.</p>
<p>@stemfriend. Yup!</p>
<p>Contemplative is fine. Balance is better. 
Maybe we’ll be quiet for a while and let y’all argue about Intel. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Really? Yet, the competition is totally geared to helping students with college applications. Again, all Intel would have to do is delay its announcements until April and all false accusations would vanish. But, that would mean that the biggest attraction also disappears. You can be naive all you want, but the schedule of the selection is what is, and there are NO valid reason why the 300 semis need to be announced in early January or the finalists a few days later. The finals could be announced and held much later in the Spring. It is done by choice and by design. </p>
<p>As far as the rigging and manipulation by adults, it is neither cruel nor gross to state facts that been discussed here before about what happens at Stony Brook, just name one of many. Intel semis admitted that they were presented with selected projects and simply followed the basic instructions of the mentors. </p>
<p>Here you go </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/education/09education.html?_r=0”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/education/09education.html?_r=0</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Martin Rocek, a Stony Brook physics professor, picked a math project for Neal Wadhwa of Ward Melville. “It happened there was a new development in the field that was not exceedingly technical,” says Professor Rocek, who gave Neal private geometry tutorials and suggested several calculations to work out. Those calculations broke new ground in the supermanifold field, but Neal says that at first, he didn’t grasp what his answers meant. “Professor Rocek told me the significance of what I’d found,” he said. “I didn’t know.” <<<</p>
<p>Still wondering what paint by the numbers means? Or adult manipulation? Read the article. </p>
<p>And then check a few profiles of the mentors. Think Rafailovich is slowing down? </p>
<p><a href=“http://commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/am2/publish/General_University_News_2/Stony_Brook_University_Faculty_Mentors_35_Semifinalists_in_2013_Intel_Science_Competition.shtml”>http://commcgi.cc.stonybrook.edu/am2/publish/General_University_News_2/Stony_Brook_University_Faculty_Mentors_35_Semifinalists_in_2013_Intel_Science_Competition.shtml</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? </p>
<p>If they were doing what you claim they were, then why wouldn’t they announce semifinalists and finalists in the beginning of December in order to meet the RD deadline for the vast majority of schools? </p>
<p>People can not only add that to their CA, but can also write their essays about the process of applying and the great result they have. Right now finalists don’t get notified until end of January and the best they can do at that point is write the “by the way, I am an Intel Finalist” email update. Hardly as much impact as making it a major part of your story. The top 10 don’t get announced until the time that the adcoms are probably in the finishing touches of their decision.</p>
<p>As for why not make announcements in April, well, you should learn what actually goes on after you are announced as a finalist. You spend about 6 intensive weeks preparing for the finals - creating the poster board, preparing your presentation, and many study for the interviews. One set of interviews are most specifically are not about your topic, and so the bio person may study about new topics in physics, the math person reads up about new findings in chemistry, etc. Many people take this really seriously.</p>
<p>Okay, so you want that to start in April, 6 weeks later, after all the prep, have that intense week in Washington. Oops, that is right when the AP exams are. Bummer for those kids. Oh, and not just AP exams but finals are coming up a couple weeks later.</p>
<p>Having the event in the middle of the semester, around the time many schools have spring break, seems like a great time.</p>
<p>As for your comments about “rigged” and that cheats and frauds are being recognized - no comment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh please. Have you seen the videos of these students? Do you really think they didn’t love what they were doing? </p>
<p>Oh and O’Dorney won Intel STS, so the administrators seem to have done a good job in building a program that recognized that…just like you said they should be doing. They are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, how many of the top 10 were mentored by Stony Brook.</p>
<p>ZERO</p>
<p>NONE.</p>
<p>Some may view that as a sign of slowing down.</p>
<p>Regarding Intel and college applications, take a look at a thread started by a famous alumni of this forum.<br>
<a href=“D became an Intel STS semifinalist today, will it help her HYPS application? - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/636661-d-became-an-intel-sts-semifinalist-today-will-it-help-her-hyps-application-p1.html</a>
Funny how that works!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What has the “top 10” to do with the points I have made, the racket is at the semi level. The finalists have to be able to defend their projects and stand on their two feet in front of judges. </p>
<p>Again, the examples of O’Dorney and the other candidates who stem from rural areas are very different from the SUNY/LI or the Bay Area Intel factories. </p>
<p>Still not getting where my “beef” comes from? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok. I read the article.
Where is the paint by numbers?
Where is the adult manipulation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow. That is a great commitment to research and the students. And this is bad because?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh those manipulative adults! The make the kids fill out forms themselves and have a support staff to remind them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait a minute here. Looks like Aditi did a lot of work! Maybe didn’t get the paint by numbers kit.</p>
<p>/sigh …</p>
<p>Xiggi, I read the article too. As long as the students and mentors are honest about their contributions to their project, I don’t see a problem. I have heard that at least when they are determining the finalist, they require a recommendation from the mentor. Considering these people in the article were talking openly with the New York Times, it sounds like they would have been pretty honest during the competition.</p>
<p>I never participated in Intel, but as I understand it, the students are evaluated in three ways: (1) how much lab work they did and how important the results themselves were, (2) how well they presented the project and fielded questions from the judges, and (3) what their contributions to conceiving the project and/or parts of the project. </p>
<p>It sounds like the students did well in the first and second parts of the evaluation, but didn’t do much or anything in the third part. However, let me tell you, it is extremely rare for the students to do this; if they do, they tend to get to the Intel finals. </p>
<p>Honestly, they have small research competitions for grad students and postdocs and they never ask what kind of intellectual contribution you made to the project. That sort of thing is useful in recs when you are applying for new positions (especially faculty positions) or when you are applying for federal trainee grants. (Winning a federal trainee grant is the most impressive award you can win as a grad student or postdoc.) </p>
<p>Before I did research myself, I didn’t have an appreciation for how hard the non-intellectual parts of research truly are. You can do experiments for months before you get data that is useful or publishable. So if these kids have 6 experiments on their poster, maybe they executed 30 different experiments. Each one of these procedures has many steps and requires a great deal of meticulousness. </p>
<p>Haven’t read through all of the posts, but I wanted to weigh in. DD participated in a research program last summer. Very tough to get into. First you needed to be nominated by your school and then there were over 200 applicants for 25 spots. When the program first began 13 years ago, it was geared for kids in her public school district. </p>
<p>Now kids from all over CT can apply/attend and there was a young lady from China & a young man from Texas. Sadly, there were only 2 kids from her school district…the rest? From the independent day/boarding schools in CT. This year, I received an extensive list of science research opportunities at the same university. Not sure if they were available last year or they are just jumping into the pot. </p>
<p>Our state flagship also offers research opp’s. I think it depends on where one lives. </p>
<p>I don’t think all of the Intel semifinalists come thru stonybrook. And from where I sit (a long way away from Long Island), I can only applaud their commitment.</p>
<p>Not sure if I completely agree with xiggi, but I think something like 1/6 semifinalists this year came from Long Island. That’s a pretty abnormal amount of overrepresentation, even compared to other math and science contests</p>
<p>Collegealum314, I cannot disagree with much of your post. In the end, there are several ways of looking at this and competition in general. For starters, allow me to repeat that I do not think that the students are at fault. They are interested in doing the best they can and take advantages of opportunities when they present themselves. At the risk of repeating myself --which I have done since 2005 on this issue, my problem is totally with the adult participation in those events and the way that the outcome becomes more a testament to one’s resources and contacts that anything else. I also understand that not all mentors are cut from the same cloth. There are plenty of dedicated teachers, researchers, and professiors who are genuinely interested in teaching the youth and push the youth in considering a career in the sciences. But then, there comes to the other side of the coin with the Stony Brook relation with the LI and NY schools as the poster child for things that run out of all control and perhaps decency. There is little doubt that the kids that present themselves to the mentors are some of the brightest and hardest workers from the region. They are the students who flock to this site to ask if they should retake a 2340 and if 13 APs is a tad too much. They are the students who spent every summer in academic program. And, for some it is the thirst and joy and learning. For others, who are often prompted by parents ranging from Chua-like monsters to more benign helicopters, it is all about building the pefect resume.</p>
<p>Although we hardly live in a world that is equitable, my biggest issue is that the exercise has become --in certain parts of the country-- a competition among mentors who are often judges by none other than their peers to form a small world of its own. Not all that different from the academic publishing. </p>
<p>The sad reality is that --as many elements of the high selective admission world- the “battle” has become one of connections and contacts. Is knowing someone who happens to sit on multi-million dollar research and experiment and is willing to sheperd a high schooler through the process by rehashing part of the research and bring it down to a teenager level really what the Intel should be all about? Would it not be nicer to correctly peg it as a learning adventure and not pretend the student is actively engaged in researching new areas. </p>
<p>Of course, there ARE students who have done exactly the latter. They are bona fide pionneers and several if not all of the finalists are in that category and come close. Unfortunately, the well-oiled pipelines that bring masses of applicants and dozens of semi-finalists are often the beneficiaries of their better location and access to tools and … contacts. For the record, I am familiar on how this access works in places such as California and Texas. And there is little doubt that Stony Brook is not unique in its approach. </p>
<p>Why is there a problem associated with this type of competition. Again, just as the 1st grader who shows up with shoebox project that is visibly built by the parents, the teacher --as a judge-- can only accept the result and assume that the kid did participate in some fashion. This, however, does not help the poor kids who show up with a project that is visibly his own and looks like what a 6 years old would do. And it goes on from there through science fairs where some show up with posters developed on the type of printer the rich HS in LI invested in. </p>
<p>While this might happen in Wyoming or Louisiana at that stage, the playing field is different when it comes to high school. The Wyoming kid cannot take the train to SUNY or Stanford and find a broken down existing research project that can be chewed down for him or her. He will have to compete with a project that does not require the equipment or processes. </p>
<p>If the Intel competition was simply what it is today, the problem would be confined to the compeition itself. The scholarship money would be nice. However, as I have stated beforfe, that is NOT the case. The carrot for many is the boost in the application process and the main driver to “slave” months over a project. While getting to the final round of 40 might not be in the cards, making it to the 300 level is much easier and less problematic as the judging will mostly be based on evaluating the … resources used and the presentation. Something that the Intel experienced mentor who has built his or her own “resume” knows all too well. </p>
<p>Again, change the schedule of the competition, and the last element would be eradicated. </p>
<p>Xiggi, can you please elaborate on what you mean by a project being brought down to a ‘teenager level’ ? I don’t think the fundamental ideas in biology, at least, are terribly tough. It’s just hard as a high school student to know some of nitty gritty science behind them. For instance, I had to look up isoelectric constants because my school’s chemistry didn’t teach it. However, I don’t think it’s impossible to catch up if you invest lots of time in the reading.</p>
<p>It may very well be different for physics or math. Also, nanoparticles are surprisingly hot right now - I have a friend who placed very well in 2 major competitions by doing something that had to do with NP. Actually, I’d say ‘nano’ as a whole is quite popular. </p>
<p>Xiggi- in a world where the VAST majority of teenagers (even on Long Island!) are probably reading and computing at a level which in the 1940’s in this country would have been considered an 8th grade level, and where their most time consuming EC is texting and posting pictures of themselves, you do realize how ridiculous your accusation sounds? Ok, I accept that there are going to be what- 100? 200 kids? who have unfair advantages in research and have a HS teacher who prods and encourages them to join a research team where they will do Mickey Mouse work and try to pass it off as profound.</p>
<p>Done. Accepted. But how does that call into question the actual results of the kids who ARE doing legitimate work- and does that negate the kids who figure out how to do something all on their own initiative (the original premise of this thread- that you had to be the child of neuroscientists in order to participate in research at the HS level.) And moreover- calling foul on the science teachers and the school systems where anyone even cares about getting kids opportunities like this- sounds beyond bizarre given that in many school systems, the teachers, principals, etc. are so busy installing metal detectors and the like that ANYTHING academic falls off the table as a priority.</p>
<p>I would LOVE my town to have enough gumption and resources to even WANT to help kids in ways like what you are describing. There are kids (as I’ve posted) who figure things out on their own, but how wonderful it would be to have the school administration take an active interest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With all due respect, Blossom, what part of my accusation sounds ridiculous? My accusations about programs such as Stony Brook have been reported by the … Intel candidates themselves. I posted a link from 2005 and another from 2013 that shows that the same mentors (see the posts above) are still busy running their research Intel factory. </p>
<p>Do you believe that is not the case? Or do you accept that it exists, but that the practices are not nefarious, as they provide the well-connected valuable experience? </p>
<p>For the record, I do not blame the students who are seeking the opportunities; I blame the adults who are making a mockery of the competition for ulterior motives. Quite a difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure not often but CCers are often not ordinary people. </p>
<p>I didn’t do any research in high school but I did do what I consider to be “legitimate” research in undergrad, but I am not extraordinary by any stretch. An extraordinary individual may be able to do legitimate research in high school. </p>
<p>There is a very big difference from doing labor for a research facility (like cleaning glassware or collecting samples or entering data or something) to doing what one might consider “research.” I suspect in most cases you might hear of ordinary people doing research it’s really just the former. </p>
<p>I don’t have time to read through all the responses but…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Whoa? What? Is that legal? Seriously, what? I need some more elaboration here. That seems like one of the most insane things I’ve ever heard. </p>
<p>[10 char]…</p>
<p>@vladenschlutte - yes, the stipend for the 8-week internship is $1000.</p>
<p>(Net is much lower, as there is a parental fee if a kid is offered a position),</p>