(2014)

Kudos to the finalists in the Intel Science Talent Search.  But why all
the hoopla?  These contests (Intel, Siemens and so on) are fraught with
misperceptions.

For instance, take New York Times writer Tom Friedman's claim that the
Intel competition "identifies and honors the the top math and science
high school students in America...based on their solutions to scientific
problems," as if finding the fastest hurdlers or longest jumpers in the
country.  This is a gross mischaracterization.  These contests do not
really rank talent.

First, most top STEM students don't even participate in Intel and
similar national contests in the first place.  The huge time commitment
required is scary, and even energetic, motivated students may feel that
the time is better spent on other pursuits.  And participation in these
competitions is largely a function of what school one attends.  Even
back in the days when Westinghouse ran the Intel event, there were
"Westinghouse schools," with special programs designed to encourage
participation, and today some schools have turned this into an art form.
Friedman's seeming implication that most students at top STEM
institutions such as MIT are former Intel contestants is mere fancy
(though yes, some are indeed Intel veterans).

Second, the project-oriented contests like Intel are not measures of
scientific brilliance.  Yes, those who succeed are bright,
extraordinarily dedicated kids.  But the ideas for the centerpiece of
the contest, the student's research project, generally come from the
student's university mentor.  The student joins a project already in
progress, and is given a piece to work on.  During that work, the
student will come up with ideas for refinements, but Friedman's
reference to "their solutions" is exaggerated, and the "High School
Student Finds Cure for Cancer" headlines are seriously misleading.

For example, Martin Rocek, a university mentor for Intel semifinalist
Neal Wadhwa recounted for the New York Times how he interacted with the
student.  Rocek found a "not exceedingly technical" topic in math, gave
the student private tutorials, and suggested the calculations to be done.

A winner of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, Amy
Chyao, told the STEM education newsletter Metroplex Math Circle about
choosing among projects offered to her by university mentor Kenneth
Balkus.  Reader Karim Stuart then commented, "When I heard about her, I
immediately wanted to know what a 16 year-old kid had accomplished in
one summer--that I didn’t in 7 years [as a grad student]. Now I
understand, she is just reporting the work of a group of scientists who
have been working really hard at this for many years."

Professor Miriam Rafailovich, who runs an organized mentoring program
for high school researchers at SUNY Stony Brook, told me that the
contestants "get massive coaching from the schools."  There is even
a "how-to" book, Success with Science:  the Winners' Guide to High
School Research, written by winners of these national science
competitions.

And as the book and Rafailovich point out, a major motivation for many
contestants is to bolster their admission to selective colleges.  That
is a fine goal, but it also explains the much-cited fact that many of
the contestants have immigrant parents--who often have a "Harvard or
bust" (or Tiger Mom) viewpoint.  Thus the immigrants' kids are more
likely to participate.  But given the fact that the contests don't
really measure pure scientific talent, the demographics of the winners
lists sheds very little light on what our immigration policies should be
in terms of maintaining U.S. excellence in science research.

And that itself is another sense in which the publicity surrounding
these contests misleads.  One gets the impression that these students
will pursue careers in science research, helping to maintain U.S.
excellence in the field, but in reality very few of these students will
take this path.  On the contrary, Professor Rafailovich says the top
career choice is now business.  Perhaps some will eventually do
something in business related to science, but in terms of the national
good, it's not the same as actually doing science.  In the past, many
have gone on to careers as physicians, but again less valuable in terms
of the national good.

None is this is to detract from those who place highly in these
contests.  They are obviously very bright, energetic and resourceful
young people, who by the way must not only conduct the research but also
cogently explain their work to contest judges--no mean feat for such
highly technical material.  Good for them, but the contests must be put
in perspective.