High School Kids Beat MIT at Robotics Competition

An anonymous writer submitted a story saying "A bunch of bright high school kids from Carl Hayden Highschool beat out MIT in a Marine Technology Center's Robotics competition. Here are additional details of the competition."

Comments

Doesn't say much for education

[Mr. Underbridge]

must attend high school somewhere. Right?

Even granting that, it would indicate that said MIT education didn't make them any better. And think, all those student loans for nothing? ;)

Obviously the entire story is somewhat facetious.

Re:Doesn't say much for education

[Sj0]

It looks to me like this is a case of some ridiculously talented high school kids. They had some really good ideas and put them to use. The physics nerd really came in handy. :P

On the other hand, it's also possible that there was a lower standard for a bunch of high school kids, whether intentionally or not. Let's face it, seeing some ghetto mexican kid spouting off about fluid dynamics and phase shift of helium aargon lasers is damned impressive -- much more so than a couple college students speaking at the same level, and that could certainly have been a factor.

Anyway, considering that the MIT kids probably didn't start college as physics prodigies like christian or skilled in mechanics like the guy I'm too lazy to check the article for the name of, they certainly got their money's worth -- I know how to program reasonably well, does that mean that people who get compSci degrees are wasting their money? Others are great at electrical without schooling, does that mean that I'm wasting my money in EE? No. If it did, then we wouldn't have schools.

Re:Doesn't say much for education

[wan-fu]

I think you have it quite backwards and this is due to the current folklore surrounding colleges such as Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc. The common folklore is pretty much what you stated: professors don't teach classes, TAs do, and that it's all about 'the name' of attending the school.

I attend one of these 'highly ranked' institutions and it has been a great experience. I've never had a class taught by a TA. In fact, all of my classes are taught by the professor. The big name professors are even willing to teach small seminars. For example, at Stanford, Osheroff (physics Nobel) teaches a small seminar that's related to optics and photography (one of his hobbies). Outside of lecture, one may deal with the TAs more, but most of the questions one would ask are adequately answered by the TAs. If one requires the professor's assistance, it might take some effort to setup a meeting time, but I've always seen them try hard to make time for students.

Here's how I view the difference between a 'top' institution and your typical state school: one will get the same education at both schools. There's a huge caveat to this, that being at a state school, one will probably have to expend a good amount of effort to ensure that he receives the same education. For example, at Caltech, the math core that all students must take is far beyond any typical math requirement at a state school, and if one attended a state school, he would have to spend more effort to find the correct difficult courses to take.

So, why pay the exorbitant amount of money to attend a so-called prestigious university? One word: opportunity. The opportunities afforded at a top university are exponentially greater than other schools. The top professors within the field have lots of knowledge to share; there is a great chance to network with both the faculty and one's peers. Definitely, as you mentioned, atmosphere is key, because everyone at these schools went there as "overachievers" (not that they are all overachievers, but they all share some type of 'drive' - if you get my gist) and being in such an environment, simple conversations can lead to interesting studies. I feel that the big difference in the opportunities available at a big-name school is research at the frontier with lots of available resources. At a small state school, if one wishes to do research in any field, the odds of finding a professor with a similar interest who is at the cutting edge and has resources to share is significantly smaller than at a top university where there are more research dollars coming in and cutting edge work happening every day. In addition, having the most current research being conducted at one's school allows more opportunities to see the frontier and learn about it in class. Finally, there is a great opportunity to listen and learn from others that one could not do at a state school. Big-name schools can draw people like Howard Dean or Bill Clinton or [insert visionary/scientist/social mover/etc. here] to speak at the school. While it's possible for a small state university to do so, I doubt you'll see Fresno State or whoever pull in more than one or two of such speakers a year whereas at Harvard, such people would be coming in year-round.

Being able to do cutting edge work while learning in an atmosphere geared toward higher education and having the interaction with great professors and people is the difference. Whether or not one thinks it's worth it to pay big bucks to get that difference is an individual choice.

Sad

[dos_dude]

Really sad. Not that some high school kids can build better robots than the MIT. But that they beat the MIT in the 'Technical Report' category is really sad.

I also find it amusing that the MIT would enter a competition that seems to be targeted towards high schools. Or should I find that sad too?

Re:These are not Future MIT students

[KillerDeathRobot]

So, why is it they can't apply for citizenship?

Seriously, if they were legal citizens, I know there are lots of scholarships out there for hispanics particularly, and probably particularly for engineering too. MIT would be well within reach if they were legal citizens.

Educate Crimaliens

[spicydragonz]

The radio talk show hosts usually use the term crimaliens when ever talking about illegal aliens. This story puts a face on those "immigrants who are stealing my white child's spot in state college." Personally, I think that smart people should get the most help to succeed. Think about the loss that our economy/society is suffering by having this young man put up dry wall instead of engineering.

I read this in Wired

[ifwm]

And came away with the same feeling I had when I read the headline. That is, that it's a great feelgood story, but they didn't really "beat" MIT. They were handed the competition because they scored better in the subjective parts. I KNOW part of that was because they were underprivileged kids who weren't expected to do anything. They essentially rose so far above expectations that they were given the competition as a result.

But it's still a great story.

As an aside, shouldn't someone with some money to throw around help these kids pay for college? As illegals, they aren't eligible for financial aid (nor should they be, but wouldn't this be a great situtation for someone like Mark Cuban?