4 ms·

I've been disgusted for years by the parade of "winners" of the major science fairs, most of whom have privileged access to research labs, wealth, or both. Beca

by timr 12y ago

I've been disgusted for years by the parade of "winners" of the major science fairs, most of whom have privileged access to research labs, wealth, or both. Because, protip: no high school student can do graduate-level scientific research. When you see that, it means that the student had special access to a lab that was already doing the work. And yet, year after year, these folks are given lucrative scholarships and trotted out by the media as examples of the best-and-brightest scientific talent. There's no way to reform it -- there's an incentive to game the system, so parents will find a way to a game it. It's just one more example of the perpetuation of wealth across generations.

wyager 12y ago
> no high school student can do graduate-level scientific research. That's not true. I've seen better (original) science fair work than some PhD theses. It's just 1/1000 students that can pull it off.
- LeonRobrotsky 12y ago
  Such as?
  - tokenrove 12y ago
    I went to a national science fair with a friend who (completely on his own) came up with a novel, patentable way of reducing drag on ships. I don't remember the details, but he went to the international stage with it, justifiably, and there was a fair bit of fluid dynamics involved. For me, science fair was the only thing that kept me going to school. (Indeed, I dropped out the next year when I was disallowed from competing.) The project that got me to the nationals was about comparing the efficacy of genetic algorithms against neural networks in a game playing task (with a multi-machine, networked simulator); looking back, it was a big mess, and there was a lot of dumbness (that, if I had had even one mentor, could have been rooted out), but it wasn't dissimilar from unambitious master's projects in the CS department at my local university. Many projects at the national level were much more sophisticated. Like any school competitions (does the author think math and programming contests are any different?), people with ambitious parents who push their children, and especially children in private schools (that often dedicate class time to working on these competitions), have a massive presence at the higher levels. But what's nice is that you don't have to have any of that to get to those higher levels, either. Motivation is a funny thing.
  - wyager 12y ago
    All sorts of stuff. A lot of the best, most novel research I saw was just students combining fields that wouldn't normally have much interaction at the university level. There was a lot of cool CS+medicine and MechE+biology research. Some of these projects would go on to present at major industry conferences.
- hueving 12y ago
  And how do you know the student wasn't just a glorified proxy for their mentor?
  - wyager 12y ago
    By knowing them personally, and sometimes working alongside them.
Xcelerate 12y ago
> Because, protip: no high school student can do graduate-level scientific research Of course they can. I do graduate research in quantum chemistry and molecular dynamics. You can easily do research-class DFT work with a personal computer, open source software, and a strong drive to learn. It's done all the time. Granted, I use Titan for my largest simulations, but I've gotten publications out of work done solely on my Macbook Pro.
- timr 12y ago
  You say in your profile that you're a graduate student, so I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that because the software is online, a high school student can do research? Any high school student can download free software. That's not a question. Almost none can understand the math (I say "almost" because I'm sure there's some child prodigy out there who can; the exception makes the rule), and fewer still can conceptualize a question within the field that counts as scientific research. The few (if any) prodigies who can surmount those hurdles are, by definition, already graduate-level researchers in the field, and are not piddling around with high school science fairs.
  - Xcelerate 12y ago
    > Almost none can understand the math See this is the point I disagree with. I think plenty of high school students can understand the math necessary to do cutting-edge scientific research. No need for child prodigies at all. Maybe for work that's Nobel prize winning or something, but your average run-of-the-mill PhD student? I imagine tons of 14-18 year olds are capable of it. I was writing my own Metropolis light transport programs when I was 17 by looking up articles on WoS and Google Scholar. Now I'm doing the same kind of thing -- just with MD instead. I don't think I've become any more intelligent since high school (or even that much more knowledgeable), and in fact, I was probably better at focusing back then than I am now since I didn't have so many distractions in my life. There's nothing atypical about me; I'm nowhere near the level of "genius", and I was not a child prodigy. So yes, I'm quite sure of my statement.
    - deleted 12y ago
zo1 12y ago
"It's just one more example of the perpetuation of wealth across generations." You say that as if it's a bad thing. The thing you seem to be complaining about is one of the wonderful things about parenting. I.e. to impart/share/teach/give what you have accumulated over your life. Whether that is something physical, or intangible such as knowledge, makes no difference.
- superqd 12y ago
  I agree with this. I struggled at first (with my daughter's performance in a recent science fair), but realized that my experience was a gift I could give to her in the form of a better-than-average ability to explain seemingly complicated ideas to an 8 year old. And to provide somewhat expert guidance on the scientific method itself. To a certain extent, this happens in many other ways at schools as well. I mean, those kids with very athletic, or sports oriented, parents, may be more driven or have better guidance in athletic endeavors that would my kids. But we seem not to care about that (until the parents are screaming during a game). And likewise with music, or art, and so on. So I think I've decided not to get too concerned about how others might view my daughter's work on her project. It would be unfair (to her) if I decided not to give her explanations that were the benefit of my own experience.
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  Your comment only contains a very individualistic perspective. Sure, it's a great experience to share some of what you have accumulated over your life, for you personally and for your children. That doesn't mean that it's a purely good thing for society. It is the societal perspective that timr most likely had in mind.
- onion2k 12y ago
  The question is where that line is drawn. Is it really reasonable to hinder the progression of society to maintain your and your children's enjoyment of being in the elite? A thought experiment: If Bill Gates decided to recruit the top 10,000 maths teachers in the world and shutter them away in a warehouse to perfect the ideal maths lessons solely for his children, would just be "one of the wonderful things about parenting"?
cperciva 12y ago
Because, protip: no high school student can do graduate-level scientific research. My experience indicates otherwise. It's rare, to be sure, but it does happen.
aethertap 12y ago
Let me give you my perspective as a parent who fully intends to give every possible educational boost to his child. I have a job, and lots of other obligations. Quite frankly, I don't really care if she wins the science fair or not. I suspect that if she decides to compete when the time comes, she'll have a good shot at it just because of the level of effort we put into education and the equipment we have around the house. The majority of my free time and money is spent on this, so we have a lot of unusual stuff. It's easy to put that kind of effort into your own kids, because they live with you. They're around for all of your spare moments, and they can use equipment you have access to that demands close supervision. Now here's the part that's relevant to your comment - I'm also heavily involved in her school, trying to do as much as I can for all of the other kids who are interested (the topics are computer science, math, and robotics). I get to spend maybe two hours a week working on that, after my other obligations are taken care of. It's simply not possible for me to do more for the school, and even if I could the problem is concentration of resources. Given a certain budget (time and money) that I have available for this project, it's obvious that I can make a large difference for a small number of kids, or a small (forgettable) difference for a large number. Taken to the extreme, I can make an enormous difference for one kid (mine). No matter what I try to do, I'll never be able to make that kind of difference for even a small classroom full of kids, and certainly not a whole school. So I'm left with this choice: Do I spend my resources in a pursuit that's likely to be ultimately fruitless (i.e. trying to "raise all boats"), or do I spend it on something I have a very high chance of success with? Which of those is more wasteful? My answer is that I do the best I can for the school, but I feel no guilt about giving more to my own kids. In the end, if my daughter ends up winning a science fair it's going to look exactly like a case of inherited privilege, and maybe that's what it is. That's not because I'm trying to hold down everyone else though, it's just a simple matter of logistics. If I could give that kind of boost to everyone, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

by timr 12y ago

wyager 12y ago

> no high school student can do graduate-level scientific research. That's not true. I've seen better (original) science fair work than some PhD theses. It's just 1/1000 students that can pull it off.

LeonRobrotsky 12y ago
Such as?
- tokenrove 12y ago
  I went to a national science fair with a friend who (completely on his own) came up with a novel, patentable way of reducing drag on ships. I don't remember the details, but he went to the international stage with it, justifiably, and there was a fair bit of fluid dynamics involved. For me, science fair was the only thing that kept me going to school. (Indeed, I dropped out the next year when I was disallowed from competing.) The project that got me to the nationals was about comparing the efficacy of genetic algorithms against neural networks in a game playing task (with a multi-machine, networked simulator); looking back, it was a big mess, and there was a lot of dumbness (that, if I had had even one mentor, could have been rooted out), but it wasn't dissimilar from unambitious master's projects in the CS department at my local university. Many projects at the national level were much more sophisticated. Like any school competitions (does the author think math and programming contests are any different?), people with ambitious parents who push their children, and especially children in private schools (that often dedicate class time to working on these competitions), have a massive presence at the higher levels. But what's nice is that you don't have to have any of that to get to those higher levels, either. Motivation is a funny thing.
- wyager 12y ago
  All sorts of stuff. A lot of the best, most novel research I saw was just students combining fields that wouldn't normally have much interaction at the university level. There was a lot of cool CS+medicine and MechE+biology research. Some of these projects would go on to present at major industry conferences.
hueving 12y ago
And how do you know the student wasn't just a glorified proxy for their mentor?
- wyager 12y ago
  By knowing them personally, and sometimes working alongside them.

Xcelerate 12y ago

> Because, protip: no high school student can do graduate-level scientific research Of course they can. I do graduate research in quantum chemistry and molecular dynamics. You can easily do research-class DFT work with a personal computer, open source software, and a strong drive to learn. It's done all the time. Granted, I use Titan for my largest simulations, but I've gotten publications out of work done solely on my Macbook Pro.

timr 12y ago
You say in your profile that you're a graduate student, so I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that because the software is online, a high school student can do research? Any high school student can download free software. That's not a question. Almost none can understand the math (I say "almost" because I'm sure there's some child prodigy out there who can; the exception makes the rule), and fewer still can conceptualize a question within the field that counts as scientific research. The few (if any) prodigies who can surmount those hurdles are, by definition, already graduate-level researchers in the field, and are not piddling around with high school science fairs.
- Xcelerate 12y ago
  > Almost none can understand the math See this is the point I disagree with. I think plenty of high school students can understand the math necessary to do cutting-edge scientific research. No need for child prodigies at all. Maybe for work that's Nobel prize winning or something, but your average run-of-the-mill PhD student? I imagine tons of 14-18 year olds are capable of it. I was writing my own Metropolis light transport programs when I was 17 by looking up articles on WoS and Google Scholar. Now I'm doing the same kind of thing -- just with MD instead. I don't think I've become any more intelligent since high school (or even that much more knowledgeable), and in fact, I was probably better at focusing back then than I am now since I didn't have so many distractions in my life. There's nothing atypical about me; I'm nowhere near the level of "genius", and I was not a child prodigy. So yes, I'm quite sure of my statement.
  - deleted 12y ago

zo1 12y ago

"It's just one more example of the perpetuation of wealth across generations." You say that as if it's a bad thing. The thing you seem to be complaining about is one of the wonderful things about parenting. I.e. to impart/share/teach/give what you have accumulated over your life. Whether that is something physical, or intangible such as knowledge, makes no difference.

superqd 12y ago
I agree with this. I struggled at first (with my daughter's performance in a recent science fair), but realized that my experience was a gift I could give to her in the form of a better-than-average ability to explain seemingly complicated ideas to an 8 year old. And to provide somewhat expert guidance on the scientific method itself. To a certain extent, this happens in many other ways at schools as well. I mean, those kids with very athletic, or sports oriented, parents, may be more driven or have better guidance in athletic endeavors that would my kids. But we seem not to care about that (until the parents are screaming during a game). And likewise with music, or art, and so on. So I think I've decided not to get too concerned about how others might view my daughter's work on her project. It would be unfair (to her) if I decided not to give her explanations that were the benefit of my own experience.
nhaehnle 12y ago
Your comment only contains a very individualistic perspective. Sure, it's a great experience to share some of what you have accumulated over your life, for you personally and for your children. That doesn't mean that it's a purely good thing for society. It is the societal perspective that timr most likely had in mind.
onion2k 12y ago
The question is where that line is drawn. Is it really reasonable to hinder the progression of society to maintain your and your children's enjoyment of being in the elite? A thought experiment: If Bill Gates decided to recruit the top 10,000 maths teachers in the world and shutter them away in a warehouse to perfect the ideal maths lessons solely for his children, would just be "one of the wonderful things about parenting"?

cperciva 12y ago

Because, protip: no high school student can do graduate-level scientific research. My experience indicates otherwise. It's rare, to be sure, but it does happen.

aethertap 12y ago

Let me give you my perspective as a parent who fully intends to give every possible educational boost to his child. I have a job, and lots of other obligations. Quite frankly, I don't really care if she wins the science fair or not. I suspect that if she decides to compete when the time comes, she'll have a good shot at it just because of the level of effort we put into education and the equipment we have around the house. The majority of my free time and money is spent on this, so we have a lot of unusual stuff. It's easy to put that kind of effort into your own kids, because they live with you. They're around for all of your spare moments, and they can use equipment you have access to that demands close supervision. Now here's the part that's relevant to your comment - I'm also heavily involved in her school, trying to do as much as I can for all of the other kids who are interested (the topics are computer science, math, and robotics). I get to spend maybe two hours a week working on that, after my other obligations are taken care of. It's simply not possible for me to do more for the school, and even if I could the problem is concentration of resources. Given a certain budget (time and money) that I have available for this project, it's obvious that I can make a large difference for a small number of kids, or a small (forgettable) difference for a large number. Taken to the extreme, I can make an enormous difference for one kid (mine). No matter what I try to do, I'll never be able to make that kind of difference for even a small classroom full of kids, and certainly not a whole school. So I'm left with this choice: Do I spend my resources in a pursuit that's likely to be ultimately fruitless (i.e. trying to "raise all boats"), or do I spend it on something I have a very high chance of success with? Which of those is more wasteful? My answer is that I do the best I can for the school, but I feel no guilt about giving more to my own kids. In the end, if my daughter ends up winning a science fair it's going to look exactly like a case of inherited privilege, and maybe that's what it is. That's not because I'm trying to hold down everyone else though, it's just a simple matter of logistics. If I could give that kind of boost to everyone, I'd do it in a heartbeat.