<p>Another Question</p>
<p>About five of my friends were finalists for TASP and were interviewed, but they all were eventually rejected from the program. If I am not correct, TASP only picks 160 students to interview, and around 80 students for the program. You're suppose to have a 50/50 percent chance if you are a finalist right?</p>
<p>Ryan, I do pretty much agree with you about the high-school research part (note: not the RSI research, I am talking about the multitude of students that say they have done "research"). A lot of high school research is just a rehash of graduate work from a local laboratory. Don't get me wrong, there <em>can</em> be innovative and creative high school research projects, but I would say a large percentage of high school projects heavily rely on mentors and thus it defeats the purpose of actually doing "research." I did an original project on geometry over the last year without a mentor (the only adult help I got was proofreading for logical errors at the end) and I realized how difficult it was publishing a 20-page paper without any form of adult guidance.</p>
<p>Oh, I meant Summer Science Program (I went to Ojai 2006). It is an awesome program, and if prestige is an issue, it's right under RSI. But you should never apply to a science program for the prestige; do it because you love it. For me, I loved science, and I would relish spending six weeks learning about something that I wouldn't otherwise have access to (how many schools in the US teach Astronomy? how many high schools in the US own a telescope?). Explore your options, and most of all, follow your passions.</p>
<p>perm- do both
go to TASP
do research as well just not at RSI</p>
<p>kyzan-</p>
<p>Telluride doesn't say this, but I imagine its not as simple as a 50/50 chance. I stated on another thread that my essays probably barely got me to the next round, but I feel like I had a really good interview. Your friends may have had good essays and terrible interviews, or "decent" essays and "decent" interviews. Worry about that when you make it that far; for now, make sure your essays are good.</p>
<p>Hi! RSI '05 here, and I must say, I was a little disappointed with the research. I suppose I had extremely high expectations. Actually I was just unusually unlucky in terms of placement and stuff (long story)...Anyway, it's a bit unrealistic to think you'll do an amazing project in 4-5 weeks, unless you're doing math. I never thought I'd say this, but I sometimes regret going to RSI, because I really had a bad experience with the research and therefore have to work like crazy just to <em>think</em> of a project to enter in competitions (not that research is about competitions, but hey, I could use some scholarships). However, I don't think RSI is about the research, for the friends you make and the things (research- and nonresearch-related ;) ) you learn are much more valuable at this age.</p>
<p>I think you've pointed out the true value of RSI and TASP. It's about making friends and getting a taste for the college experience at an Ivy/Top 20 school (and prestige whoring, of course), not about getting some tangible prize. RSI is just less overt about it. Both are amazing programs; just don't go to RSI b/c you want to be published, and don't assume that RSI is "better" because researched based.</p>
<p>Umm well, most people will not be published with their RSI project. RSI does not claim that going through the program will guarantee a great project, but they do "guarantee" valuable lab/scientific experience, and I think everybody got something out of their mentorship. I guess I'm biased because of my interests, but I actually do think RSI is more prestigious, to answer the OP, simply based on the acceptance rate and success of past Rickoids. However, I know next to nothing about TASPers, so maybe I shouldn't make such generalizations. I'm guessing that both are worth your time, and I doubt you'll get into both, so just go to the one you get into (if you get into either). It's not impossible to have really good applications for both programs, so start working :P! I hope the OP gets something out of this convoluted post, but I really gotta go eat dinner...</p>
<p>oh yeah i'm rsi '06 btw hahaha.</p>
<p>Hmmm...since we're on the topic of research...I was wondering how you guys did your research. I did research with a professor last summer....but I did most of it right before I fell asleep. Like, I would go through the whole day trying to figure something out...and while I'm in bed, I suddenly just come up with it (and I stay up until 3 trying to get it all down). I did end up with a theorem...but I'm thinking that that's probably not what most you do, especially in the other sciences where you need labs and stuff. So what is it like to do research in say...biology?</p>
<p>Once again (Coriano), you're missing the "big picture" in terms of prestige. Both acceptance rates are below 10%- past the point its unfair to compare them. As for the success of graduates, the only Rickoid wikipedia bothers to mention is Terence Tao (never heard of him). Past TASPers include Paul Wolfowitz, Francis ***iyama, and Stephen Weinberg (won the Noble in physics and deigned to speak at my TASP).</p>
<p>The OP's question is unfair and unanswerable. Both programs are amazing, but not many people are qualified for both.</p>
<p>predator: i went to rsi; i didn't try out for tasp because it just wasn't for me.
ryan: you're right about how rsi cares about aime test scores and research, but the responses to the application questionaires are just as important in deciding who gets into the program. When RSI asks you to name a subfield that interests you and to discuss a question in that area that you would like to research, really going indepth on your analysis helps tremedously. don't bs your way through with some crappy response like "i want to study evolution because I want to know whether god created the world in seven days." there were two people from idaho at rsi this year, and one from new jersey. i would say as a whole idaho has less oppurtunities for research than nj. it's about what you did with the resources that you had that makes an impression on rsi admins.</p>
<p>I'm surprised you haven't heard of Terrance Tao. He just won the Field's medal, which is like the Nobel Prize for math, for showing that there are infinitely many arithmetic sequences of primes of arbitrary length, whereas the open question was to find if there were infintely many such sequences of length 3. He's really young too, going to RSI in '89.</p>
<p>Ok and RSI has also been around for less than half the amount of time TASP has been around. The first Rickoids are barely old enough to win things like the Nobel Price and the Field's Medal. Also, just because wikipedia doesn't mention that some notable people were alumni doesn't mean that there weren't any. For example, Chris Skinner was, I think, Andrew Wiles's only grad student at the time he proved Fermat's Last Theorem, which is like the height of his career. As for less famous people, there are students like Tiankai Liu, Gabe Carroll, Eric Price, etc. who are pretty legendary among high schoolers that went to RSI, whereas I don't know any legendary TASPers. And for anyone who's taken the USABO, it was started by my roommate's girlfriend's brother, an RSI alum, through CEE, RSI's parent organization :)</p>
<p>Although I would say that RSI alumni tend to do better in college/win more awards etc., I wouldn't say that translates to more prestige necessarily. The type of people that go to RSI would probably have won those awards anyway, whereas there is a lot less opportunity for winning stuff in the humanities.</p>
<p>Hm...I guess we have different ideas of fame (you really don't know who Paul Wolfowitz is?) but TASP did graduate a Noble Physics laureate. </p>
<p>I will, however, disagree with what you brought up in that last paragraph. Half of TASPers will go to Harvard and Yale; the other half are dispersed throughout the rest of the top 25.</p>
<p>And there might not be as many medals for the humanities, but I think being President of the World Bank carries more prestige than solving a math problem.</p>
<p>Half of Rickoids will go to Harvard and Yale, and the other half will go to the rest of the top 5.</p>
<p>And idk, it seems like being the president of the world bank involves less special talent than the technical fields, or even academia in humanities.</p>
<p>zogoto, are you joking me? Do your research before making ignorant statements like "the president of the world bank involves less special talent than the technical fields, or even academia in humanities"</p>
<p>Seriously. No offense, but the majority of the population doesn't give a damn about Fermats last anything. The World Bank does things that affect people's lives.</p>
<p>By the way, Paul Wolfowitz can be credited with causing the war in Iraq. Good or bad, he's redirected history.</p>
<p>I think this is just a silly argument. They are both just as prestigious, but that shouldn't even matter. If you like the curriculum and the setup, apply, if you like the setup of both and are interested in the subjects, then apply to both.</p>
<p>Look you guys, theres no point in arguing which program has better alumni. They are geared towards different kinds of people who as a result specialize their talents in different areas. A statement such as "the president of the world bank involves less special talent than the technical fields, or even academia in humanities" is absurd, and inherently biased. A mathematician has his merits, and so does the President of the World Bank. The point is, they are both great programs and you should apply to them for the sake of learning, not arguing about which college would accept you afterwards.</p>
<p>"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. "
agreed.</p>
<p>"Seriously. No offense, but the majority of the population doesn't give a damn about Fermats last anything. The World Bank does things that affect people's lives."</p>
<p>So true.</p>