5 ms·

One positive light is that before, there was only one big science fair which sort of became the defacto prestigious award. These days kids have so many more op

by dluan 11y ago

One positive light is that before, there was only one big science fair which sort of became the defacto prestigious award. These days kids have so many more options for science fairs and competitions by discipline, but none of them would exist had it not been for the Intel Science Fair.

hugh4 11y ago
I'm not so convinced by the value of these big science fairs. It seems that they're inevitably won by some kid whose parents just happen to be scientists, or who otherwise have a scientist in the family. And what they get that's valuable isn't just the access to the lab, it's the suggestion of a good project that's simple enough to do but which genuinely advances the field of science. For everyone else, the science fair looks nothing like real science. They wind up spending a month playing music to a statistically insignificant number of plants, getting an inconclusive result which they will nonetheless try to sell as conclusive, and walk away thinking "Well, that was stupid". I'm all for involving children in the process of doing real science (as opposed to the "experiments" they usually do, which are just demonstrations). But formulating and testing a proper scientific hypothesis that will genuinely advance the field is way beyond the capability of almost every child, and indeed most beginning PhD students, because they don't know where the limits of human knowledge are just yet.
- mturmon 11y ago
  I agree regarding influence of parents. I've seen projects that seemed to depend on access to lab equipment from a parent's lab. Another problem is the competition concept itself, which is myopically focused on the lone genius concept. A lot of real science has to do with noticing others' work and collaborating with them effectively in a complementary way. Support for Maker fairs may actually make sense for a change. Here's a good historical summary which I read on HN: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-science-fairs-arent-so-fair/387547/ http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-sci... HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207686
  - pitt1980 11y ago
    "noticing others' work and collaborating with them effectively in a complementary way" I'd love an example of what you're talking about
    - DaveWalk 11y ago
      Collaboration has quickly become the de facto standard in the life sciences. There are examples in every discipline; to give you something specific would only highlight my ignorance of other fields. It happens between members of the same lab group, between groups and between institutions. The single-author publication is becoming a rarity. For an example from my own experience, researcher A makes a groundbreaking discovery in a disease, and collaborates with mouse expert researcher B at a different institution to develop a model for this. For the most part, any paper in a respected journal with authors from various institutions reflects an aspect of this collaboration.
    - mturmon 11y ago
      There are so many. Here is one from a couple of friends. The two groups in this case are the Mars rover scientists, who want to get more usable images of their science targets, and the automated planning and scheduling CS types, who have software that can identify them (if they know what they are looking for), and dynamically change the activity plan in response. http://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/newsandevents/newsdetails/?NewsID=677 http://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/newsandevents/newsd... This won the NASA software of the year award in 2011 (MER rover), and its successor was just uploaded to Curiousity.
- 2sk21 11y ago
  Fully agree with this. Those kids who grow up in an academically oriented family are most likely to be even aware of such contests. The other problem is that many schools in the US don't give the students enough time to work on a meaningful long-term project.
  - tricolon 11y ago
    I hadn't even heard of STS until I got to college. I was pretty disappointed that I hadn't had a chance to participate simply because I didn't know I could.
- groth 11y ago
  I agree with you -- I never participated in these science fairs myself, but I attended a couple of summer programs where the majority of my cohort ended up submitting to these contests. The vast majority of people I knew who submitted (a statistically significant sample ~50) either seemed to have parents who worked in academia, or lived near a university, or just came from an incredibly privileged background (east coast new england andover/exeter or west coast harvard westlake). "Talent search" isn't quite right. On the subject of whether the children who are involved end up doing real science -- I think they do, or at least they get a inkling sense of the research process. But aside from the difficulty of ascertaining the limits of human knowledge, they are also protected from the very real logistical aspects of the research process. Mostly, their papers don't get submitted to journals. Mostly, they won't be writing grants to fund their work. Mostly, they don't really have to join a lab for the next N years and develop significant working relationships with their peers and advisors.
- akhilcacharya 11y ago
  I completely agree (although that may be because I'm bitter I was never able to compete). More should be done to provide more equitable access to research opportunities and mentors, two things I wish I had ~6 years ago.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Can't blame parents with resources for raising kids with lots of opportunities. Isn't it what every parent would do if they could? Its the whole point of being successful - giving your kids a good start. And those arguments are nowhere near the STS. It was (is?) the real deal.

by dluan 11y ago

hugh4 11y ago

I'm not so convinced by the value of these big science fairs. It seems that they're inevitably won by some kid whose parents just happen to be scientists, or who otherwise have a scientist in the family. And what they get that's valuable isn't just the access to the lab, it's the suggestion of a good project that's simple enough to do but which genuinely advances the field of science. For everyone else, the science fair looks nothing like real science. They wind up spending a month playing music to a statistically insignificant number of plants, getting an inconclusive result which they will nonetheless try to sell as conclusive, and walk away thinking "Well, that was stupid". I'm all for involving children in the process of doing real science (as opposed to the "experiments" they usually do, which are just demonstrations). But formulating and testing a proper scientific hypothesis that will genuinely advance the field is way beyond the capability of almost every child, and indeed most beginning PhD students, because they don't know where the limits of human knowledge are just yet.

mturmon 11y ago
I agree regarding influence of parents. I've seen projects that seemed to depend on access to lab equipment from a parent's lab. Another problem is the competition concept itself, which is myopically focused on the lone genius concept. A lot of real science has to do with noticing others' work and collaborating with them effectively in a complementary way. Support for Maker fairs may actually make sense for a change. Here's a good historical summary which I read on HN: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-science-fairs-arent-so-fair/387547/ http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-sci... HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207686
- pitt1980 11y ago
  "noticing others' work and collaborating with them effectively in a complementary way" I'd love an example of what you're talking about
  - DaveWalk 11y ago
    Collaboration has quickly become the de facto standard in the life sciences. There are examples in every discipline; to give you something specific would only highlight my ignorance of other fields. It happens between members of the same lab group, between groups and between institutions. The single-author publication is becoming a rarity. For an example from my own experience, researcher A makes a groundbreaking discovery in a disease, and collaborates with mouse expert researcher B at a different institution to develop a model for this. For the most part, any paper in a respected journal with authors from various institutions reflects an aspect of this collaboration.
  - mturmon 11y ago
    There are so many. Here is one from a couple of friends. The two groups in this case are the Mars rover scientists, who want to get more usable images of their science targets, and the automated planning and scheduling CS types, who have software that can identify them (if they know what they are looking for), and dynamically change the activity plan in response. http://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/newsandevents/newsdetails/?NewsID=677 http://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/newsandevents/newsd... This won the NASA software of the year award in 2011 (MER rover), and its successor was just uploaded to Curiousity.
2sk21 11y ago
Fully agree with this. Those kids who grow up in an academically oriented family are most likely to be even aware of such contests. The other problem is that many schools in the US don't give the students enough time to work on a meaningful long-term project.
- tricolon 11y ago
  I hadn't even heard of STS until I got to college. I was pretty disappointed that I hadn't had a chance to participate simply because I didn't know I could.
groth 11y ago
I agree with you -- I never participated in these science fairs myself, but I attended a couple of summer programs where the majority of my cohort ended up submitting to these contests. The vast majority of people I knew who submitted (a statistically significant sample ~50) either seemed to have parents who worked in academia, or lived near a university, or just came from an incredibly privileged background (east coast new england andover/exeter or west coast harvard westlake). "Talent search" isn't quite right. On the subject of whether the children who are involved end up doing real science -- I think they do, or at least they get a inkling sense of the research process. But aside from the difficulty of ascertaining the limits of human knowledge, they are also protected from the very real logistical aspects of the research process. Mostly, their papers don't get submitted to journals. Mostly, they won't be writing grants to fund their work. Mostly, they don't really have to join a lab for the next N years and develop significant working relationships with their peers and advisors.
akhilcacharya 11y ago
I completely agree (although that may be because I'm bitter I was never able to compete). More should be done to provide more equitable access to research opportunities and mentors, two things I wish I had ~6 years ago.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Can't blame parents with resources for raising kids with lots of opportunities. Isn't it what every parent would do if they could? Its the whole point of being successful - giving your kids a good start. And those arguments are nowhere near the STS. It was (is?) the real deal.