<p>just posted, editing now.</p>
<p>Cliche arguments:</p>
<p>Made below</p>
<p>Also, "well-rounded student" w.r.t. college admissions argument is also a very cliche argument - one that can be refuted by adcoms who express the desire for a well-rounded student body. And I have provided some sources.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I never said that high schoolers weren't capable of self-studying, or of being intelligent. Again, you have made a hugely fallacious assumption.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes you did. As pointed below:</p>
<p>Your assumptions:
</p>
<p>Assumption made by you: You can't just read articles on neuroscience and talk about it without ever having taken a neuroscience class.. or a physiology class, or a highly advanced chemistry class, or a highly advanced biology class..</p>
<p>May I point out to you that Intel Science Talent Search students have done research on advanced biology, chemistry, and neuroscience? </p>
<p>===</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, they can understand their own research. By nature. Can they FULLY understand someone else's so as to interpret it and offer more plausible, pertinent insights? Unlikely. This implies that the high schooler is more knowledgeable than the person who has made this their life-long obsession/profession. This is unlikely; the neuroscience professor wrote the book, he did the research, he taught hundreds of college kids and read their papers with their thoughts on the subjects, he colloborated with even more professionals just like him. The high school student has read the synopsis of all of this research, and at best, understands the report. Does he understand it more than the professor? See above.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I said before... A person's choice of research interests is often highly idiosyncratic - so it's not as if he's repeating information that can be found elsewhere.</p>
<p>The high schooler does not have to be more knowledgeable than the person who has made this their life-long obsession/profession. He just needs to pursue a number of papers from different areas, and to comment on how they relate to each other (professionals have little time, and often cannot examine journals). He does not even need to portray an aura of authority on them (I am not advocating that the student writes them for a popular audience - now - if the student wrote them for a popular audience, then there are issues of ethicality involved. But if he only wrote his blog for a group of people who would be naturally skeptical of what he wrote - then it can only be a catalyst to future discussion of the research topics).</p>
<p>Professors do value the contributions of high school students and undergraduates, for reasons other than training and education. That this happens can be illustrated by the fact that there are high school students who DO get published in journals.</p>
<p>A way to start, of course, is by reading the literature and trying to understand it (it's easiest to understand it when you actively comment on it by yourself, and a blog is an excellent means to do this). If a student wants to do research with a professor, the first thing that the professor gives the student is some journals articles in the field for the student to read. That a student who has not approached the professor can start by discussing journal articles independently, and then asking a professor/summer program adcom to briefly skim through his blog - shows that he has demonstrated interest and knowledge in doing such research. </p>
<p>A blog can discuss the results from journals. There are many blogs that discuss journal research - yes - even blogs by people who are not actively involved in the field. Popular science is often done by reporters outside the field - and yes - reporters do make mistakes in their reporting. We still don't call the reporters unethical. The fact is, the student's blog is never going to achieve as much prominence as that of news reports.</p>