<p>"Example of first kind: parent is researcher at Dana Farber, kid does research at Dana Farber, not that it should be therefore rejected, but view it with skepticism and in the context of everything else about the kid. "</p>
<p>Yeah, but the problem with that is that there is some genetic component of inheriting intelligence (sorry I have to disagree with you Mollie.) If a kid’s parent is a professional scientist, probably the kids are going to be good too. I mean, often you hear about athletes and you find out their parents are also famous athletes, many times in different sports. Yes, there is a cultural advantage and also it’s easy for them to get their kid the job (although it’s not that tough to walk in and volunteer somewhere as long as you are geographically near a lab or university.) For example, there is a postdoc in my lab whose kid worked in the same lab for the summer when she was 15. According to my advisor, she was really great in lab and also was very quick in picking up what would be the next experiment that should be run. </p>
<p>At any rate, I wouldn’t regard them with more skepticism. However, doing research really isn’t that hard to begin with. At age 18, I think a far more important predictor of long-term success in research would be their test scores and performance in class. Unless the student did something really unusual, I would only use it as a tiebreaker. However, most of the time when high school students do something outstanding in research, the rest of their record is pretty bulletproof so it’s a moot point.</p>