<p>1) Which is more prestigious?
2) Which is better learning wise? And worth spending the time?</p>
<p>i suggest the summer programs board ;)</p>
<p>You can't compare them! </p>
<p>One is for science and one is for humanities. Both are for people who are intensly passionate about the respective subjects. You don't want to go to one just because it's more prestigious! Both are prestigious in their own subjects. If you're not passionate about what you're learning, then there's no point in wasting your time. Get a job.</p>
<p>1) depends ont he rest of ur app; if you have a humanities/science slant--i personally think TASP is more prestigious, but im bias
2)RSI- spend 6 weeks working in a university /w professor that ultimately culminates into a science project that you can use to compete in competitions like siemens, intel, jshs...
TASP- 6 weeks with 2 professors learning and reading about 1 of 5 possible topics taught in 4 universities. Its a great experience.</p>
<p>if you can get in they are both worth it. the experience of meeting the other students there is worth it.</p>
<p>You can't be serious... (to the OP)</p>
<p>Ok my question came out wrong. I am not sure which one to apply to or both?</p>
<p>Don't worry about which is more prestigious. Worry about getting in =P</p>
<p>^ LOL. Yes!</p>
<p>You realize both programs have an acceptance that is less than 10%. Last year TASP's acceptance rate was 9%, and RSI was something that was close to that...it's like getting into Harvard = ="</p>
<p>I applied to both and didn't get into either. But I had a great time at SSP '06 =D</p>
<p>Whats SSP?</p>
<p>summer science program. It is an awsome program in new mexico or california based around astrophysics</p>
<p>SSP could also mean Havard's Secondary Summer Program I think.</p>
<p>I always hear that referred to as Harvard ssp though, but it can mean both.</p>
<p>to the op:
i asked the same question as you last year, and after a year of growth and maturity (jk- sarcasm), i now realize how stupid i was to do so. it really doesn't matter about prestige in the end, it's about what you enjoy. personally, i would lean towards rsi, but i'm a bit biased. getting into either programs is a pretty nice accomplishment. :D</p>
<p>vanilea, did you make it into RSI or TASP? If so, I have some questions for you.</p>
<p>Both are very selective (RSI does have a slight edge there) and will boost your chances for HYP etc, but if you apply to either for prestige, I doubt you'll get in. You should apply because you have a strong passion for something.</p>
<p>On a more controversial note, I think TASP does a better job of screening applicants. RSI is so focused on exclusive things like independent research and AIME scores; what most people on CC don't realize is that not every school offers tests like the AIME. Moreover (<em>braces for backlash</em>) most high school research is ********. The titles of your projects might sound fascinating, but most HS research is just repetitive, meaningless routine under the guidance of some professor that your dad knows. Its great that you have ambition and drive, but many people in rural high schools can't poke around with some gene. (I'm speaking from experience. I've been doing historical research for the past two years that will garner me no attention. I have friends that grow mold and make bacteria glow in the dark, and they praise left and right)</p>
<p>The TASP application is almost entirely essay based, giving applicants a chance to express their potential and intellectual prowess, not the extent of their connections.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong; both are great programs and if you go to one you should be proud (TASP '06!)</p>
<p>What kind of essays do you write for TASP? Are they persuasive essays, personal essays, critical essays, etc?</p>
<p>I would agree that since TASP is a humanities program, their application does give the adcom a better idea of each applicant. It is hard to measure scientific/mathematical talent based on just a few pieces of paper.</p>
<p>I might be biased, and this might just be based off the type of people I talk to/hang around, but it seems that RSI is a little more prestigious. I mean, just from looking around this board, that seems to be the case. People automatically associate RSI with a hook into almost every college, while the same isn't probably as true for TASP. Also, TASP has a higher acceptance rate (it's about twice as much, I believe).</p>
<p>But, this doesn't mean that TASP is less prestigious. For one, the application is harder to complete, increasing self-selectivity and making the acceptance rate unindicative of overall selectivity. Also, it is possible that this board represents more math and science-type students and less humanities-oriented ones, which explains the perceived prestige of RSI over TASP.</p>
<p>By the way, to RyanOG88, although I agree that the TASP application gives the adcom a better feel for the student, I disagree that most high school research is worthless, and I disagree that RSI admissions is focused on exclusive things.</p>
<p>First, high school research can actually get pretty serious. I'm assuming you mean your friends that grow mold and make bacteria glow get praise from like the local community and some small science fairs. Because many students from RSI publish their work, and the same is true for top finalists of many science competitions, such as STS, Siemens, and ISEF. Journals don't care if you're in high school--you don't get extra points for doing work at a young age--so if you publish, that's an indication that your research is on par with "real" scientists. High schoolers, at least the serious ones you see at RSI, etc., publish, so their work can't be BS.</p>
<p>Regarding RSI admissions, I think you're giving them too hard of a time. True, it is difficult to assess math and science talent. But you should realize that the AIME/USAMO, which is the main route that most math kids get into RSI through, is free for your school to offer. Most exceptional math students are identified at some point, and exposed to the world of contest math. At this point, some take initiative and push for the AMC at their school, the only test in the AMC/AIME/USAMO series that costs money for the school, or they can even do it completely for free by qualifying for the AIME through the USAMTS. In any case, the costs to participate for this are relatively low (low enough that one year, my parents paid for half of the AMCB for 10 students to take it in my school), and most really really good students (like the ones that go to RSI) are identified and take intiative.</p>
<p>And yes, there are many students in rural high schools that can't poke around with genes, but that's also why New York hardly gets anyone into RSI. In a state like NY, there are so many opportunities that not only does RSI expect more out of applicants from there, but RSI also knows that students they turn down will have other stuff to do that summer. This amounts to a sort of affirmative action for rural, smaller, states.</p>
<p>Before I start, note that I never applied to TASP and am a RSI reject, so I may not be the best source on this.</p>
<p>While on the whole I agree with Zogoto that some HS research is BS, it's important to realize that almost all research even in the real world is BS to a slight extent (not the science but how it is hyped). We live in a capitalistic world and science is sold.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the concept of publication can be deceptive. The first question to ask is whether the student is the first author. Next, you want to see what journal the publication is in. To be honest, solid science is pretty easy to publish, but making a truly spectacular discovery is very rare (I am pretty sure very very few RSI kids publish their work in Nature/Science etc (unless they work on it for years afterwards)). So the truth is that being on par with scientist means your work falls in a wide range, and a lot of good work doesnt' always get published.</p>
<p>Next, making it to the top rounds of ISEF/STS/Siemens does not mean that the work was stellar. Especially STS and ISEF, the former of which measures overall potential as a scientist, using SAT scores and Grades, and the latter of which relies on a very foolable process of getting there.</p>
<p>While both programs are prestigious, don't take them out of context. They are both summer programs, intended to encourage students in the sciences/engineering/math and humanities respectively. I would like to note that RSI can give a faulty impression from the outside that research can be done in a month; research takes months to years, and most of the rickoids that place well in competitions continue their RSI work well into the fall or enter research done outside of RSI. </p>
<p>Lastly, getting into RSI at least I suspect does require a bit of luck. When I applied my application relied on crappy overdone essays. Within 9 months of the date I was rejected I accumulated a flurry of science competition accolades that would virtually guarantee me admission into RSI if I applied again this year (which I cannot). On the other hand, I'm positive this would not have happened if I went to RSI (my work spanned more than 11 months).</p>
<p>nice post sagar, </p>
<p>Just to add my own two cents, I think that high school research is a good initiative for math/science students to develop experience and a passion for their areas of knowledge, respectively. However, when it comes to "real" discoveries or applications, most of their projects, even some siemens, have not much impact. Yes, you have people like Viscardi who can contribute to the science community. Then again, the vast majority of reseach work that high school students and to a degree even college students do go to waste. </p>
<p>Btw: I'm siemens and ISEF to establish my point of view</p>