<p>Everybody has been talking about showing your passion for learning a particular subject - like science by doing research. Well...what encompasses this...essays, lab experiments, projects, etc. Is this what Harvard would consider "research"!??</p>
<p>Do any of you have idea for research for MEDICAL SCIENCE or just SCIENCE?</p>
<p>Research usually involves real laboratory work through a university under the guidance of a mentor. Some high schools have research programs that help students find mentors in their areas of interest. Look for threads with the word "Intel" in them (they sponsor the most prestigious competitions) to find out more.</p>
<p>That's what I dislike about the concept of "research" greatly helping in college admissions: if you're reasonably gifted, your ability to conduct it almost entirely depends on the right connections. Your parent working in a university or knowing someone that does as opposed to not knowing anyone in the field. A sophisticated school with a research program vs. a normal school without one. You're not just going to be able to come up with a research topic on your own and find a lab to carry it out. Nearly always, the mentor will assign one and provide more than casual nudging. These are typically the riskier topics that the average grad student/college research assistant wouldn't take because of the low chances of reaching fruition. But once in a while, they do produce amazing results and some random kid doesn't know what just befell him when suddenly he gets the presitigious award & coveted scholarship money.</p>
<p>I know, slightly cynical and exaggerated is my portrayal, but I stand firmly that there is truth in the point I'm trying to argue: too little responsibility in the process is the student's for research to play such a major factor in admissions.</p>
<p>i didn't know that high school kids even did research until i found cc earlier this year. and i go to a small and reasonably prestigious private school...i think there's a lot of truth to what sleet said, however cynical.</p>
<p>It doesn't play that big of a factor. It's not like any other ECs are particularly hard to get either.</p>
<p>i'm not just referring to ecs for the sake of getting into college...i know that i personally would love to get the chance to do some research, for the experience alone. it's a shame that more kids aren't getting that kind of opportunities. of course it's possible, but it's much harder to make the necessary connections on your own.</p>
<p>And I wasn't referring to your post.</p>
<p>no, i know, i just figured i should specify in case it seemed otherwise.</p>
<p>Thanks for the support - thisyearsgirl. The reason I believe it plays a big enough factor in admissions is that research abstracts are one of the few things you're encouraged, or in some cases, allowed to submit as supplementary material. Additionally, there is always the occasional rumor that winning research awards such as Intel/Westinghouse is a near 100% ticket to some schools, not mentioning any names, one whose name begins with M and ends with T and consists of 3 letters, being one. </p>
<p>My friend (whose dad is a research MD) got hooked up with some research which flourished. Early Decision, he got <em>rejected</em> from Cornell. Then something amazing happened. He was a semifinalist in Intel, got 3rd place or something. All of a sudden, Regular Decision Columbia and MIT (whoops) want him, and Harvard puts him on the waitlist. His application was a perfect ceteris paribus example otherwise. I.e. nothing else changed.</p>
<p>Sure, but like I said, it's not like most ECs require anything much either. Most student elections are popularity contests, not a judge of leadership (or other) ability. I don't see how a kid having connections or something is any worse.</p>
<p>Accomplishments at the HS level aren't really amazing when you think about it, save for those olympiad medals.</p>
<p>Popularity is something a kid has direct control over. Same thing with ECs in school. If one commits time and has skill, he will flourish with ECs. I'm not talking study/drinking buddies types of connections here with research. It's mostly parent connections, with social status/wealth determining the amount of connections a school has.</p>
<p>My point was that neither was particularly representative of a student's potential or ability. In any case, point well taken. However, aren't admissions always based on how well you take advantage of your opportunities?</p>
<p>I'm sure most adcoms realize that you get research opportunities through connections. It's probably evaluated from that perspective.</p>
<p>Likewise, point taken. I sure hope they do evaluate from that perspective. But sometimes I get the feeling that the connections element deemphasized. And that's why I like to draw awareness to the issue from time to time. I read a nice article that sums up the issue well about a month ago...in some newspaper like the Boston Globe. I probably won't remember it. I wish I could give a link.</p>
<p>I hope we can agree to compromise, HH. :)</p>
<p>Sure thing.</p>
<p>Given that my son was an Intel finalist this year, this thread has attracted my interest.</p>
<p>Nobody denies that the original connection to a mentor plays a crucial role in a high school students success in science research competitions. The Intel Corporation and Science Service are the first to admit thisthey love reminding everyone how important it is for young and old minds to work together. But there are three reasons why I feel people on this thread are mistaken to underestimate the originality of students who performed their projects in a professional laboratory.</p>
<p>First, TONS of students work in professional labs, receive guidance, and end up doing great work. In the Intel Science Talent Search alone there were over 1,600 applicants. So what distinguished the top 300 (semifinalists) or the top 40 (finalists)? It was the particular level of originality, the extent to which the students understood their projects, their ability to interpret and analyze data, the quality of their explanations (both in writing and in person, to experts and to laypersons), andperhaps most importantlyhow the students handled unexpected data and took the project in a new, exciting direction. So I think that its unfair to claim that all one needs to be an Intel semifinalist is a good connectionthousands upon thousands of kids around the country who worked their butts off in a laboratory with a great mentor, but who didn't make it, know that thats not true.</p>
<p>Second, the creative aspect of science research often has little to due with the initial choice of a topic area. In my sons case, while the general area of study was in the mentor's field, the specific topic of research arose out of something that my son noted in his reading, which in collaboration with the mentor, led to the focus of the study. In fact, my son was first author of the paper, which has since been published in a major journal.
So, its not the initial contact but where the student takes it that makes the difference.</p>
<p>Furthermore, having gone to Washington to see the finalists' exhibits, it was striking how many kids clearly had ownership of their work one girl (currently my sons girlfriend, actually) cracked a complex protein structure, primarily due to her own ingenuity. In her lab, she was essentially the only one working on this specific protein, and still managed to beat out competing professionals from around the country. Another finalist devised his own invention that harnesses energy from ocean wavesout of spare parts found in his basement. ---Even in cases where the student did not necessarily have the level of creativity or inventiveness of these particular kids, their brilliance and degree of mastery of the subject was mind-boggling. </p>
<p>So, having had the opportunity to see this whole thing up close, it seems to me that there is way more than luck involved in the Intel selection process.</p>
<p>i can't speak for everyone in this thread, but i don't doubt that the kids who do win these awards are brilliant people. what i think is a shame is that other similarly gifted kids don't get the chance to try, not because of any flaw of their own, but because they haven't had the opportunity (because they grew up in the wrong environment, or because no one took the time to mentor them, or any reason beyond their control). i know i'm being an idealist, but i just wish that more students had access to that kind of opportunities. not necessarily prestigious competitions, but to do research in general.</p>
<p>edit: and congratulations to your son and his girlfriend! :)</p>
<p>Donemom...wow! Thank you for the info. But what about essays or research papers not experiments? Could you write an interesting and insightful paper on say (FOR EXAMPLE) your idea to cure cancer to impress colleges?</p>
<p>Doubtful--how insightful could a HS kid be on an issue that has many medical experts stumped?</p>
<p>Is there any other RESEARCH besides competitions and experiments? What can you do in respect to science in essays or papers???</p>
<p>as far as i'm aware the only thing that qualifies as research is original lab work with the assistance of accredited scientists. feel free to correct me if i'm mistaken.</p>