If doing research in high school is unfair and puts poorer students at a disadvantage, what extracurriculars are fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently someone just learned the phrase “witch hunting” and is trying to use it as many times in one day as they can.

Apparently, someone had nothing concrete to say because her brain is so fk’ed up.

Right! What is with witch hunt person?

But interesting that they stopped saying it when it got called out. Clearly they had no real response so they just accused people of witch hunting.

If you don’t see it’s witch hunting, you’re an idiot.

Pointing out flaws in an idea is witch hunting? Okay. Sure.

No. But accusing without providing proof is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this Reddit comment about research in high school (https://old.reddit.com/r/AskProfessors/comments/1tg9z5l/high_schooler_interning_at_a_toptier_research/omfaesb/):

“Sigh. High school students shouldn't be doing this.

Maybe just enjoy what's left of your childhood?

And don't participate in things that pad your college applications in a way that's totally unfair to other students who aren't connected to/don't live near/can't afford/don't know about intern opportunities at research universities.
But really this is on the professor who's supporting this nonsense.”

So if students shouldn’t be doing this, what extracurriculars should they do? Even things like sports or robotics favor the privilege

What’s left of your childhood?

100 years ago these kids would be working in factories and on farms. Some would be married with families.This notion of some mythical, sacrosanct “childhood” is a modern invention.

+1000

Life is unfair and apparently DCUM just now realized it.

Being born American is an unfair advantage over the vast majority of the world population.

Being born to rich parents is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a two parent household is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a household with a stay at home parent is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a parent who is dedicated to education is an unfair advantage.

Being in a good neighborhood with lots of educated families is an unfair advantage.

A child who has none of these is at a huge disadvantage to one who has several or all of these.

These advantages are not unfair. They are the product of prior planning and sacrifice.

There is a huge aspect of pure luck as to where one is born and the characteristics of their parents.

If you can’t see that, you are purposely wearing blinders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this Reddit comment about research in high school (https://old.reddit.com/r/AskProfessors/comments/1tg9z5l/high_schooler_interning_at_a_toptier_research/omfaesb/):

“Sigh. High school students shouldn't be doing this.

Maybe just enjoy what's left of your childhood?

And don't participate in things that pad your college applications in a way that's totally unfair to other students who aren't connected to/don't live near/can't afford/don't know about intern opportunities at research universities.
But really this is on the professor who's supporting this nonsense.”

So if students shouldn’t be doing this, what extracurriculars should they do? Even things like sports or robotics favor the privilege

What’s left of your childhood?

100 years ago these kids would be working in factories and on farms. Some would be married with families.This notion of some mythical, sacrosanct “childhood” is a modern invention.

+1000

Life is unfair and apparently DCUM just now realized it.

Being born American is an unfair advantage over the vast majority of the world population.

Being born to rich parents is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a two parent household is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a household with a stay at home parent is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a parent who is dedicated to education is an unfair advantage.

Being in a good neighborhood with lots of educated families is an unfair advantage.

A child who has none of these is at a huge disadvantage to one who has several or all of these.

These advantages are not unfair. They are the product of prior planning and sacrifice.

There is a huge aspect of pure luck as to where one is born and the characteristics of their parents.

If you can’t see that, you are purposely wearing blinders.

I had bad luck because my dad isn’t a billionaire. This is so unfair. Should I rob all the billionaires because I’m not one of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about this one?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/14-year-old-scientist-heman-bekele-on-his-quest-to-fight-skin-cancer-with-soap
Fair or unfair? Rich or poor?

Connected. The mentor is: Deborah Isabelle she has an MS in Material Science.

It's not like that kid read into latest cancer fighting drugs, then read about skin cancer, then experimented between the how effective soap is to the skin cancer. That requires patients that have skin cancer and willing to have a 13 year old without a HS degree experiment on them.

This is exactly the fake HS research that the thread is complaining about.

Working with a mentor makes it “fake”?

Then almost all research is “fake”.

You have a very narrow, rigid view of what “research” is that would preclude many people working in research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this Reddit comment about research in high school (https://old.reddit.com/r/AskProfessors/comments/1tg9z5l/high_schooler_interning_at_a_toptier_research/omfaesb/):

“Sigh. High school students shouldn't be doing this.

Maybe just enjoy what's left of your childhood?

And don't participate in things that pad your college applications in a way that's totally unfair to other students who aren't connected to/don't live near/can't afford/don't know about intern opportunities at research universities.
But really this is on the professor who's supporting this nonsense.”

So if students shouldn’t be doing this, what extracurriculars should they do? Even things like sports or robotics favor the privilege

What’s left of your childhood?

100 years ago these kids would be working in factories and on farms. Some would be married with families.This notion of some mythical, sacrosanct “childhood” is a modern invention.

+1000

Life is unfair and apparently DCUM just now realized it.

Being born American is an unfair advantage over the vast majority of the world population.

Being born to rich parents is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a two parent household is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a household with a stay at home parent is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a parent who is dedicated to education is an unfair advantage.

Being in a good neighborhood with lots of educated families is an unfair advantage.

A child who has none of these is at a huge disadvantage to one who has several or all of these.

These advantages are not unfair. They are the product of prior planning and sacrifice.

There is a huge aspect of pure luck as to where one is born and the characteristics of their parents.

If you can’t see that, you are purposely wearing blinders.

100%

I’d say the other PP is trolling though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teens should do stuff that they learn from and that interests them. If that's research in a lab, great. But I fear that too many are doing it just so they can list it on a college application.

Many HS activities are performative over true passion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about this one?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/14-year-old-scientist-heman-bekele-on-his-quest-to-fight-skin-cancer-with-soap
Fair or unfair? Rich or poor?

Connected. The mentor is: Deborah Isabelle she has an MS in Material Science.

It's not like that kid read into latest cancer fighting drugs, then read about skin cancer, then experimented between the how effective soap is to the skin cancer. That requires patients that have skin cancer and willing to have a 13 year old without a HS degree experiment on them.

This is exactly the fake HS research that the thread is complaining about.

Working with a mentor makes it “fake”?

Then almost all research is “fake”.

You have a very narrow, rigid view of what “research” is that would preclude many people working in research.

They don’t have a narrow or rigid view. They’re just trying to further dumb down the entire population. If I’m too dumb to be ahead, no one else should be ahead. Pretty standard liberal ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about this one?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/14-year-old-scientist-heman-bekele-on-his-quest-to-fight-skin-cancer-with-soap
Fair or unfair? Rich or poor?

Connected. The mentor is: Deborah Isabelle she has an MS in Material Science.

It's not like that kid read into latest cancer fighting drugs, then read about skin cancer, then experimented between the how effective soap is to the skin cancer. That requires patients that have skin cancer and willing to have a 13 year old without a HS degree experiment on them.

This is exactly the fake HS research that the thread is complaining about.

I don't see your logic. So poor disadvantaged high school kids can't have mentors?
How'd you assume that kid didn't read into latest cancer drug development?
Where it says they conducted experiements on patients?

Where does it say he is "Poor Disadvantaged"? He goes to Woodson and chances are that he not. He wants to go into FDA trials to test on patients.

He has a wiki if you want to read about it.

Bekele's work has been generally well-received, but some critics point out that he has not followed standard scientific practices, such as publishing in peer-reviewed journals. This makes it difficult to assess the true impact of his research. Available information suggests that the key active ingredient, imiquimod, has been used for years in topical treatments, such as creams, for skin cancer. What appears to be innovative is the use of imiquimod in soap and the incorporation of "lipid nanoparticles." However, there is currently no concrete evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in humans.

This is more truth on where HS are on research and their contribution. Not that they are working at a PHD level. The mentors usually help them write it up for the win. Same game for most of the science competitions.

The kids that are publishing on peer-reviewed journals are ones that likely did less. Their published names are likely: Professor, Grad Student 1, Grad Student 2, ... and then the HS kid.

My personal gripe is not the kids are trying to do research - my personal gripe is the "disadvantaged" have real stars that never get a chance. And "disadvantaged" is not about race. I know I went to Herndon and watched the st*p*d rich kids brag, pad their resumes, and go onto T25 school. All the while couldn't get through Calc BC without "help" and simultaneously make fun of people that went to Nova CC.

[Anonymous]

My STEM kid has a single-author note published based on work they did entirely themselves. And I was completely uninvolved, so no nepotism or “mom’s lab.” It would be sad if admissions officers didn’t value that.

Lots of the sports ECs are economically and logistically unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about this one?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/14-year-old-scientist-heman-bekele-on-his-quest-to-fight-skin-cancer-with-soap
Fair or unfair? Rich or poor?

Connected. The mentor is: Deborah Isabelle she has an MS in Material Science.

It's not like that kid read into latest cancer fighting drugs, then read about skin cancer, then experimented between the how effective soap is to the skin cancer. That requires patients that have skin cancer and willing to have a 13 year old without a HS degree experiment on them.

This is exactly the fake HS research that the thread is complaining about.

Working with a mentor makes it “fake”?

Then almost all research is “fake”.

You have a very narrow, rigid view of what “research” is that would preclude many people working in research.

I said "Connected" - how did they get the mentors as a HS student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this Reddit comment about research in high school (https://old.reddit.com/r/AskProfessors/comments/1tg9z5l/high_schooler_interning_at_a_toptier_research/omfaesb/):

“Sigh. High school students shouldn't be doing this.

Maybe just enjoy what's left of your childhood?

And don't participate in things that pad your college applications in a way that's totally unfair to other students who aren't connected to/don't live near/can't afford/don't know about intern opportunities at research universities.
But really this is on the professor who's supporting this nonsense.”

So if students shouldn’t be doing this, what extracurriculars should they do? Even things like sports or robotics favor the privilege

What’s left of your childhood?

100 years ago these kids would be working in factories and on farms. Some would be married with families.This notion of some mythical, sacrosanct “childhood” is a modern invention.

+1000

Life is unfair and apparently DCUM just now realized it.

Being born American is an unfair advantage over the vast majority of the world population.

Being born to rich parents is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a two parent household is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a household with a stay at home parent is an unfair advantage.

Being born to a parent who is dedicated to education is an unfair advantage.

Being in a good neighborhood with lots of educated families is an unfair advantage.

A child who has none of these is at a huge disadvantage to one who has several or all of these.

These advantages are not unfair. They are the product of prior planning and sacrifice.

Good to know you have the presence of mind as a sperm to choose American parents.

A child does not choose any of the above either.

[Anonymous]

Poor are always going to be disadvantaged every step of the way, SAT, Tutoring in subjects, coaching, etc.

It seems the OP wants to find one area where they are not advantaged and now complaining about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about this one?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/14-year-old-scientist-heman-bekele-on-his-quest-to-fight-skin-cancer-with-soap
Fair or unfair? Rich or poor?

Connected. The mentor is: Deborah Isabelle she has an MS in Material Science.

It's not like that kid read into latest cancer fighting drugs, then read about skin cancer, then experimented between the how effective soap is to the skin cancer. That requires patients that have skin cancer and willing to have a 13 year old without a HS degree experiment on them.

This is exactly the fake HS research that the thread is complaining about.

Working with a mentor makes it “fake”?

Then almost all research is “fake”.

You have a very narrow, rigid view of what “research” is that would preclude many people working in research.

I said "Connected" - how did they get the mentors as a HS student?

The kid won a science competition.

So is your gripe on how students are connected with mentors?

[Anonymous]

Private sports coaching, music lessons,tutoring, essay assistance—much of it is tied to wealth and know-how. My kid is going into a different field than I am. Neither my spouse or I has connections in that field. But we do have the know-how to help her find opportunities and prepare for them, as well as the resources to drive her, buy good-quality gear, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are poorer students at disadvantage for research? Do you mean dumber students or are you just witch hunting?

I'm thinking about local programs that I know of that are equitable in their selection, rigorous, and prestigious for high school research positions. The GMU summer one (forget the name), JHU APL, or even small things at MD or Georgetown. Yes, there are some remote opportunities but not all and they're not preferred. So if a poor kid gets selected, HOW of they get there? Their car? Mom's car? Dad's car? Any car? No? Also are they paid? So, when can they go make money to pay for college, or help with rent? Yeah, I don't think they meant dumber. I think they were talking about real systemic disadvantages.