Slashdot Mirror
2004's Science Talent Search Winners Are In
Slate is running an article about this year's Science Talent Search (concentrating on things like whether the participants are "weirdos"); there are better descriptions of the top entrants' projects at this results page. Congratulations to the winners!
I won my senior year in high school and now all I do is post on /.
I wonder how many of them had help from their parents...
Now i feel old AND stupid. Thanks a lot you insensitive clod!
One of My friends was an Intel Semi Finalist, He worked on his project for about 6 months. Lucky guy now got into MIT.
"Like any company eager to burnish its brand, Intel had produced a brochure with the finalists' bios and a description of their projects--from Boris Alexeev of Athens, Ga. ("Minimal Deterministic Finite Automata--DFAs--for Testing Divisibility"), to Ning Zhou of Plymouth, Minn. ("Quantitative Trait Loci Modulating Corpus Callosum Size in the Mouse Brain")." Did they supply a dictionary with that brochure, as well?
Oh, that is bloody fucking terrible. This is the worst -- you are the worst scientist I have ever seen. Listen, do the world a favor and keep this... this thing away from us all. Kill yourself. Move far, far away and just hurl yourself off a cliff. Your parents ought to be ashamed of having you. Just... just take this 'cure for cancer' and get the hell out of my studio!
Now, where's the hot scientists?
</British Accent>
That said, looks like some rather spiffy stuff there.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
old Westinghouse science competition years
ago. The one thing that connected all the kids
was their PhD parents. Usually two.
Breeding will out.
-- ac at home (not my real name)
The Slate article is insulting. There is no other way to put it. The starting assumption that these kids would be so-called weirdos is silly, though perhaps unfounded. The stated "corollary" that "The more homegrown a young researcher, the more humdrum (by Intel standards) his or her enterprise--and the more exotic the kids' names, the more esoteric their topics" and the associated analysis of project titles is equally silly. Intel project titles are shaped by the conflicting influences of showing scientific merit (thus specific, and probably incomprehensible for people outside of the field of research, titles) versus appealing to a lay audience (such as the author of this article?).
... was on American ingenuity -- useful applications rather than elegant speculations." The story about the first prize winner's project, if anything, could perhaps reflect some politics in Intel's judging. The listed applications for the other projects are just that -- applications. When you do a theoretical project, you're forced into a position of "selling it." People will come up to you and ask you why what you did matters, and for the majority of them it will not suffice to extoll the value of intellectual development for its own sake. Very few STS finalists would be willing to say "this was just interesting theoretical work, with no immediate applications" (even if that is the complete truth). Am I devaluing their work? Absolutely not! I'm currently working on my mathematics degree, and I'm very much leaning towards pure math -- the more theoretical the better. If anything, I'd like to point out the viewpoint that "useful applications" are important is very dangerous. You can't always be looking at the short term, or significant advances won't happen.
;)
The author later implies that these kids "may get short shrift from their popular peers" -- the standard "nerd" with no social skills stereotype. While, without a doubt, some of these kids fall into that mold, it is far from true for some, and in fact most, of them.
Lastly, the conclusion, in addition to perhaps being at odds with the earlier analysis of names, states that "the premium this year
Overall, the Slate article displays a certain viewpoint and tint that I find very distasteful (just look at the cartoon they chose to have accompany the article!).
With that, I'd like to congratulate the current crop of finalists. I hope they enjoy their time in the limelight, so to speak. It should be truly a wonderful experience. I personally know several of them and know that they most definitely deserve it.
Truth-in-commenting Addendum: I say the above as a former STS Top 10 awardee, so I'm not entirely impartial here
... that somebody would give me between 20.000 and 100.000 $ for each theorem I proved. These kids are lucky...
Why the MSN article gets choosed for /., with it's lame analysis of subject titles and physical attributes of the contestants, is beyond me.
However, what did make the difference was a program in my high school specifically designed to encourage students to enter these types of competitions. Over three years, the program cultivated my interests and helped me get the courage to go to a local university and seek a professor to help me on my project. I don't know if I would have known to do that otherwise.
The application process is fairly rigorous too... they try to make sure you didn't get help in your project from your parents and that the work was done mostly independently with one or two adult mentors. I talk more about it in my other comment here.
Here in germany, we have "Jugend Forscht" which seems to be remotely similar to the STS. I got into the final round twice (no prizes though) and saw a lot of winning impostors and "mommy/daddy built/invented/proved it for me"-people.
This of course doesn't mean that there are no bright people at all, but if you get a look into these contests, you realize that these are still only humans.
I have to say, the work these young students have done is nothing short of amazing. Herbert Hedberg's work on analyzing telomerase inhibitors resulted in a tool that can run the analysis in 10 minutes compared to the standard method which takes 2 days. Imagine the potential impact that can have on the treatment of cancer patients, like his grandmother.
Boris Alexeev's work may yield this guy a visit from the NSA. With minimization of deterministic finite automata you have - as the article points out - a tool to reduce the memory and processing requirements of certain kinds of operations such as speech and optical character recognition - however, the article failed to point out another obvious application - signal processing with tons of applications in video and audio surveillance/recognition.
Ryna Karnik's work applies directly to processor manufacturing - using a focused ion beam instead of photolithorgraphy to etch wafers. I read about a similar technique, but using electron beams in a sub-.03 micron process.
Anyway, I was dumbstruck that these teenagers have produced such groundbreaking, original research. With encouragement and a suitable academic environment, teens can blossom - not just the gifted ones - and do amazing work that belies the stereotyping surrounding their age.
As gifted teens, I remember how few adults took me and my friends seriously, much less listen to our ideas. As a society, American really needs to invest more money, time, and expertise in our educational system to ensure that more of our youth can have futures as bright as these student-researchers.
here here! On top of that, she spelled the first place winner's name incorrectly!! It's supposed to be Herbert Mason Hedberg. Her perseveration on issues of name pronounceability and it's supposed correlation with project title comprehensibility(idiotic) seemed to border on being almost racist. And the section where she says "It had blank pages at the back, labeled "Notes," and I scribbled, though not very scientifically: "nice pants suit," "acne," "looks like she's got a real stage mother," "storytelling champion!!!!"" is an absolute joke and completely discredits her as a journalist. Those kinds of comments about kids coming from a supposed adult are juvenile, irrelevant and insulting, as you note. This woman is supposed to be an expert on raising kids? ha!
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Here in germany, we have "Jugend Forscht" which seems to be remotely similar to the STS
Actually I believe that Jugend Forscht (JF) is a bit more sane than the STS. First of all, most projects in JF are team efforts, while the STS seems to be for single participants only. Also the topics in JF are more down to earth, people are rather doing stuff like interesting presentations of known effects and demonstrate good methodology. It is not about finding (hype breakthrough) in (hype science).
After all science is about team work and methodology and not about presentation. I think the STS concentrates too much on the later..
its called H1B Visa -> perm citizenship. USA has been snatching the best talent from all over the world for the past few centuries. We are a magnet for nerds everywhere because of our high quality of life. This is why I laugh at trolls on slashdot complaining about H1Bs etc. We get hte best of the best. they make our country better, one desi at a time!! Thank god for immigration. white americans take shit for granted, they always did. now the world has eclipsed them and have taken over their own country. there is not much more beautiful than that
------
Although I never competed myself, I did graduate from Bronx Science, one of the several schools--Stuyvesant and lately Ward Melville on Long Island are the others--that have historically dominated the Intel (formerly Westinghouse) Science Talent Search.
New York State dominates the contest because of two key reasons:
Science was the most competitive environment I've ever experienced, and that includes the Ivy League school I graduated from and the bulge bracket investment bank I joined after college. There's a reason why in a little more than 60 years it has produced five Nobel winners, more than most colleges.
...is who Slate chose as the author of the article. Looking at the "by the same author" at the end of the article, it seems like Slate decided to assign its 'Parenting' columnist instead of any sort of science writer. Is it surprising that she then decided to focus on the "nerdiness" and "looks like a jock" aspects rather than the projects themselves?
I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you, but I have more advanced qualifications and degrees than most people. I have had a reasonably successful career in science, and it is a subject near and dear to my heart.
I will not sit quiet when I see the fundamental principles of science (openness of information, discovery for its own sake, intellectual curiosity) perverted by a rotten American corporation like Intel and foisted on unsuspecting children.
These kids are being taught (a) that science is no good without practical application and (b) that they have to protect their so-called "intellectual property" with patents.
Even if this represents reality in the "New American Century", isn't it a little early to be indoctrinating them into the rat-race?
And my post is not a troll. It is an opinion. A strong one, yes, but sometimes strong opinions are necessary to point out the serious problems with something that otherwise looks about as controversial as flag-waving and apple pie.
I've done a fair bit of moderating on Slashdot, and I think moderation is necessary in order to filter out the crap, but now I see that it is being used to limit freedom of speech when someone presents ideas with which you Yanks are uncomfortable. I'm not going to continue to moderate, because I believe that it is being abused. I had a sense that my post would be modded down, so I thought, "let's try it".
Finally: these are the children of the American Dream. It is a sick dream, and it needs to end. Teaching children to patent their scientific endeavours is an atrocity, and modding me down won't make it otherwise.
As a matter of fact, I have presented many ideas anonymously over the course of my lifetime. This was for several reasons:
(1) I felt that they were sufficiently beneficial to humankind that they should be pursued independent of anyone's claim over them on the basis of desired prestige or expectation of financial benefit.
(2) I wanted people to evaluate them on their own merit, without falling into the fallacial trap of "appeal to authority". In many cases, who the idea came from might outweigh the intrinsic merit of the idea.
(3) I have often been too afraid to voice some of my ideas publicly, since people like you would invariably attack me, and that would create controversy that would reflect negatively upon my position. This is sad and I admit that I suck, but I am human and I experience fear.
Scientific papers are another matter; the peer review system is constructed in such a way that one cannot normally submit papers anonymously. If, however, you are accusing me of using my own name for self-aggrandizement, I can assure you that was not my motive.
I am not aware of making generalizations about groups. I am referring specifically to a subset of Americans who pursue wealth above all else, consume out of proportion to the rest of the world, and continue to employ people from outside the USA for menial tasks at substandard wages. And to the Intel corporation that, last time I checked, was in the sole business of making a profit. Furthermore, I am referring to a very small group of children who have been influenced by that corporation and its principles. Children who cannot be expected to see the danger in starting out their scientific careers filing patents and focusing on applied research while calling it science. If you can get a patent upon it, it is not science: it is applied science, commonly called technology.
If these children, as you say wish to "protect their work from companies that would otherwise use it unethically", then instead of filing a patent, perhaps they should go to an anti-globalization rally, instead of propagating a system that is broken. But I doubt that is the case. I suspect that, since the prize is sponsored by Intel, they have the notion that patenting something is good, or else they haven't really thought about it. Children adopt the attitudes of their respected elders very easily. That is why corporations should not be allowed access to children.
Please try to understand that this is not an anti-patent rant, merely a rant against the concept of protecting "intellectual property" in the field of science. There may be excellent reasons to patent a manufacturing process or a specific implementation of a scientific discovery, commensurate with the level of effort invested in developing it, but scientific pursuits should be free from such concerns. It is duplicitous of Intel to foster any other attitude. At least, if it is called science.
I may be bitter; I am confronted constantly by people like you whose first response to any idea is, "hush, you should patent that; don't tell anybody". I am bitter about the decline of intellectual freedom and the corporatization of science. I am bitter that only applied science gets proper funding in most parts of the world, and I am bitter that the quality of corporate-funded science is so poor.
I am definitely unsuccessful. I have convinced almost nobody that science should be pursued for its own sake, and that our survival as a species may depend upon it.
I am certainly self-righteous. One needs to be amid the din of the dumbed-down soap-box nonsense roaring out of the lower forty-eight that gets passed off as science.
But silent I shall no longer be!