<p>The whole state of PA had 7 semi-finalists. Obviously not something school-driven around here!</p>
<p>Ohio had 9, but 5 of them were from the same school.</p>
<p>I havenât looked at all the states yet, but Iâm guessing Georgia is at the bottom of the barrel. We have a whopping 2 from here, one public and one home-schooled. I too had never heard of Intel until CC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>JS, unless it was a slip of the keyboard, I do not believe having used the word corrupt. I have no evidence nor knowledge that the actual judging is deliberately picking the âwrongâ winners. I have no reason to believe that the judging is nothing else that at the highest caliber. </p>
<p>My issue rests entirely with the small cottage industry of educators that has sprung up to prepare potential candidates and help them to the extent the final project/research should be the intellectual property of the âprofessorsâ who attempt to collect the awards. In the most egregious cases it is science as a paint-by-the-number project where the result is a testatment to the knowledge of how to curb the rules and the wealth of the supporting research facility, or the access to parental connections. </p>
<p>We have had spirited discussions about the role played by schools in the New York area --right here on CC. I think they can be found via a search on Intel or a few of the SUNY schools.</p>
<p>It is pretty hard to not know about the Intel Science Talent Search since each year the winner is paraded around on major network morning shows. Just being interested in science and education, I have known about it from before I had children (and I am not a scientist). I think the STS is much more relevant to colleges since the application includes several essays, the transcripts, and recs as opposed to Siemens which is based solely on the research paper that may or may not be the studentâs sole work. Yes it is very hard to compete with kids from high schools that have entrenched programs to produce scientific excellence. There are many articles on these schools and their efforts to tie students to university mentors and get them all into labs. Afterall to perform the level of research these kids do, you need a professionally equiped lab and I doubt very much that high schools can supply the necessary equipment. At ISEF two years ago, my son was told by a judge that 90% of the projects are âuniversity drivenâ. But there are a few little engines that could that may sneak in. It helps if the studentâs research interests do not require lab equipment or super computers.
Oh and I need to correct my earlier post on the money: The top 10 goes from $100,000 down to $20,000.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=âhttp://www.stonybrook.edu/simons/intel.htm]intel[/urlâ>Intel | Simons Summer Research Program]intel[/url</a>]
[url=<a href=âhttp://www.stonybrook.edu/simons/intel.htm]intel[/urlâ>Intel | Simons Summer Research Program]intel[/url</a>]</p>
<p>These were all Stonybrook projects</p>
<p>My son is a semifinalist. He is homeschooled. Neither my husband and I have a science background, and neither do any of our relatives. My son didnât work in a lab and didnât have a âmentor.â<br>
I agree that many of the students do have more resources than my son had. However, it is possible to make it, at least to this level, without them. My son also won awards at ISEF and JSHS with this project.
btw-- the research papers are judged âblind.â No student names, no school names, no mentor names, etc. on the paper itself.<br>
Of course, the remainder of the application includes letters of recommendation and other indicators of where the student goes to school, what labs they worked at, who their parents are, etc.
There are many times that I wished my son did have the resources that the other kids had. However, I think he was proud to have done it all on his own and probably learned some valuable lessons in doing so.</p>
<p>xiggi -</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification. I thought thatâs what you meant, but âriggedâ and âracketâ (which you did use) are pretty loaded words and connote âcorrupt,â although you didnât use that word, so thatâs why I asked. Itâs a pity the Intel folks (and the newspapers) donât do a better job of distinguishing between the cases youâre describing and that of cpqâs son. Itâs a little like whatâs happened to the Soapbox Derby over the decades.</p>
<p>cpq -</p>
<p>You are right to be proud of your son. Unfortunately, even the blind judging you are describing doesnât correct for the unequal resources available to many kids and (more importantly) the amount of coaching, etc, that can go into the final product which gets judged. All the more credit to your son for not having all of that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A number of years ago, I knew someone who described a kid like that, but in addition her science project was actually selected to go up on the space shuttle. SHE didnât get into Brown either!</p>
<p>cpq: one hopes that college admissions people are capable of recognizing the difference between your sonâs achievement and that of the heavily coached/groomed/mentored.</p>
<p>âIt is pretty hard to not know about the Intel Science Talent Search since each year the winner is paraded around on major network morning shows.â</p>
<p>Sorry⊠canât resist⊠Who watches âmajor network morning showsâ?</p>
<p>To the OP; I hope your question has been answered, and this discussion does not diminish your Dâs, or any oneâs accomplishments.</p>
<p>Xigi -
</p>
<p>I think you are taking this to the wrong side. Why do you think everyone tries to send their children to best schools and hope to get into the best universities? My analysis is that they want to make the best use of the resources to learn and become successful in life and career.</p>
<p>If the teachers, mentors and professor wonât help students then how will they learn? Research is not necessarily done from scratch. Many times you take into account existing research in the area of your interest build on the knowledge and then apply to solve some outstanding small problems in that field or enhance existing solutions.</p>
<p>Professors, teachers, mentors and the places of research donât become the semifinalists but the students do. </p>
<p>Donât undermine the children efforts in getting this far. I know the time my D spent on her research through out the junior year, summer and part of senior year. It is a tremendous effort. She got into MIT/Caltech early without this honor as her research doesnât need a validation and universities can make out the strength of the candidate from the application and the abstract of the research itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>POIH, I donât believe I did undermine anyoneâs efforts in getting so far. I offered the opinion that the announcement of the winners of the scientific competitions should be delayed until such time all competitive schools have finished their selections. What would be the drama in announcing the scholarships in May of the senior year at the earliest? </p>
<p>In a way, arenât we saying the same thing since your daughter got into MIT/Caltech before earning this latest recognition? It is obvious that the application file offered plenty of reasons for the two most competitive schools in the country to select her. </p>
<p>Congratulations to your daughter.</p>
<p>xiggi-
</p>
<p>No, we arenât. Sometimes outside help is required to make decisions. That is why universities ask for recommendations, look at the awards, honors. Since the admission officers might not be the best judges of the research, athletic abilities or historians. They rely on the skilled in those areas to provide them with additional information.</p>
<p>That is why these awards are so important. But these awards, honors on their own wonât make or break anyone application but are supposed to be used to give boost to an already accomplished application.</p>
<p>Well, then we have to agree to disagree. </p>
<p>I maintain that such competitions were not created to help admissions officers make their decisions and that there are simply way too many ethical and equity questions about the entire process to consider it a valid yardstick., let alone one that should be used in a selection process. </p>
<p>Simply stated, too many very capable students are totally precluded to participate with a reasonable chance of success all the while wealthy and well-connected families can all but purchase their way into the labs of schools such as StonyBrook and make sure the trains are filled with willing participants. </p>
<p>In the meantime, this type of competition remains a monument to outright cheating, nepotism, and favoritism. Abdicating a part of the selection process by relying on such awards is a mistake.</p>
<p>Xiggi- If the winners of these competitions got there by cheating, nepotism, etc., how do you explain their successes later in life? Do people continue to buy the winnersâ way to the Nobel prize, Fields Medals, Macarthur Fellowships, etc.? Hereâs a link the the accomplishments of the alumni of STS:
[Intel</a> Science Talent Search (STS): STS Alumni & Their Honors](<a href=âhttp://sciserv.org/sts/about/alumni_honors.asp]Intelâ>http://sciserv.org/sts/about/alumni_honors.asp)</p>
<p>Possibly youâve never seen the grilling these participants get from panels of judges at the JSHS, or rounds of judges at ISEF. Iâve heard itâs even more intensive at Intel STS and Siemens. Do you really think the judges are so stupid that after questioning the kids for hours they canât figure out whether the kids did the work themselves? Or do you think the judges are all so corrupt that they will pick students solely for nepotistic reasons? Yes, there is a concentration of students from certain schools in NY. However, more than half of the students come from outside NY. Are these students supposed to have nepotistic ties as well? Moreover, the same students receive awards from multiple competitions, held in multiple locations, by judges from all over the country. If there were a great deal of nepotism involved, then you wouldnât see these students winning no matter where they went and who the judges were. </p>
<p>Iâll grant you that the students from some of the schools are well prepared for this competition by their schools. However, this brings to mind the phrase recently made popular: you canât put lipstick on a pig. These kids are smart and they are hard workers. Yes, some of them are wealthy and have every advantage in the world. But they still have to have the intelligence, desire and work ethic to get as far as they do.</p>
<p>Iâm not sure why you think capable students are precluded from participating. Perhaps it requires more effort and initiative for students who donât have the resources, but in no way does it preclude them from participating.</p>
<p>OK. Slam the networks and morning shows. The STS winners also are interviewed on NPR radio and articles on them in various mainstream publications/newspapers. This is a very prominent award that is covered extensively in the lay media. As witness, see the recent coverage of the students who were treated to an intel rep showing up at their high school with giant $1000 checks made out in their names on Wednesday. This was covered by local newspapers and local television. Pretty hard to avoid hearing of this competition. I just find it hard to fathom how someone can say they never heard of STS. Sure the Ayn Rand essay contest or RSI, but this competition is splashed all over the media and if you have any interest in science or education, it is pretty easy to notice it.</p>
<p>^Well, the fact remains I never heard of it before CC. Iâve learned a lot of things here, and it has been a real eye opener for me. Maybe that means I donât care about education and science ( which is hard for me to swallow since me and H are both MDâs), but I think it means just being well off and not first gen, doesnât âlevelâ the playing field. I think there is amazing variations between communities! Not that thereâs anything wrong with that!</p>
<p>BTW; I am NOT implying the award isnât prestigious. That was not my intention at all! I am only reflecting on a new world that happening upon CC has opened up for me, and reflecting on how may people donât know about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just took a look at the list of STS semifinalists. New York has 115 of the 300 (and, as noted above, 59 of the the 115 are from Long Island). Illinois, by contrast has a total of 9. Does that give you a hint about why someone might say they never heard of STS? </p>
<p>Itâs a good idea to be cautious in making generalizations about the value/importance of particular competitions/programs based on their popularity in your own region. Obviously, in metropolitan New York and several other areas, participation in Intel/Siemens is the norm for science-oriented kids, but thatâs not the case everywhere. In my kidsâ schools, a handful of top students are invited to sit for the National Olympiads (Chem, Bio). But I personally know no science-oriented student, including the two I know who currently go to MIT and my son, who will go to Yale after his gap year, who have participated in Intel/Siemens. Iâm not sure my son has more than a passing idea of what it is. I donât consider it a cultural deficiency.</p>
<p>Cpq1xtbu, the unfortunate part of discussions about the competitions is that they invariably turn into a direction that was not anticipated. It is not my intention to belittle the accomplishments of the students who participate. I have tried to express my reasons why I believe that the Intel and similar competition should NOT be used as a criteria for college admissions.</p>
<p>And, fwiw, allow me to quote myself; âSimply stated, too many very capable students are totally precluded to participate with a reasonable chance of success all the while wealthy and well-connected families can all but purchase their way into the labs of schools such as StonyBrook and make sure the trains are filled with willing participants.â</p>
<p>Again, my issue is not that the participants are not qualified but that the element of cheating and favoritism CANNOT be eliminated from the competition despite years of reports.</p>
<p>My best congratulations to all the semifinalists and their parents! ParentofIvyHope, mom in virginia, 4th house, MyOlaHome, you have every reason to be extremely proud of your children. cpq, I am especially impressed by your sonâs accomplishment, as it is much more difficult to excel in this area without the infrastucture of school programs, mentors and university labs.</p>
<p>I have seen the same articles Xiggi has seen, about school/university research factories who hand interested students a pre-packaged piece of research that is part of a larger program. In this situation, it may be very hard to distinguish the studentâs contribution from that of the mentor and other members of the lab. But at the very least, the student has spent a great deal of time learning about an area of science and how research is actually done. I am sure that this kind of arrangement does not often lead to recognition at the highest levels. But it is important to keep in mind that the usual progression to becoming a scientist involves grad school courses after college and a process of âlearning by doingâ in a lab during grad school and, later, as a post-doc, with increasing levels of independence. The Intel semifinalists are functioning at different levels along this spectrum, in all cases far beyond what is expected of high school students. </p>
<p>Some kids, like cpqâs son, are really out there in terms of ability, motivation, and originality. Some other kids may be just as far out there, but it is very hard to tell, reading about them in the newspaper. My son is an example of this. He has always been very precocious in math and science, and I remember that at his 3rd grade science fair, another parent made a crack to me to the effect that my husband and I must have done the project. I realize now, having seen a younger son participate in his 3rd grade science fair at a more typical 3rd grade level, why they found it hard to believe that S1 had actually conceived and carried out his project all on his own. What S1 did is not within the range of imaginable possibilities for S2. </p>
<p>S1 has some chance of becoming an Intel sf in a couple of years. He took physics at CTY the summer before 9th grade, and the instructor made it clear to me that his performance was truly exceptional, even in this high-ability group. He took AP Physics as a freshman and got a 5 on the exam. Now, in 10th grade, he spends hours each week learning, on his own, an area of physics that is not of interest to me or my husband (both Ph.D. physicists), and at this point he knows more about it than we do. He is working toward doing his own original work in this area, and it may very well turn into something in the next 2 years. But I can see people reading about him, and saying that of course his two physicist parents did the work, when nothing could be further from the truth. If it were true, it would be very clear to the Intel judges.</p>
<p>We have a desperate need to develop more scientists in this country. I can tell you that in our lab, we have not hired a US citizen in the last 20 years, and I can also tell you that the US has lost its dominance in science and technology. There are now superb labs in many areas of the world. Taking a look at where the papers in journals and presentations at conferences are coming from, and how this has changed in the last 10-20 years, is very enlightening.</p>
<p>We should not be criticizing these students, who chose to spend many hours doing research at some level. We should be finding ways to open these opportunities to more students. </p>
<p>Xiggi, if you think that success in the Intel competition should not be considered in college applications because wealthy parents âbuyâ their kidsâ ways into labs, then I hope you also think that excellence in athletics, music, etc., should not be considered, as wealthy parents âbuyâ their children coaching, instruments, special camps, etc.</p>
1 Like