Predicting admission trends - is the “spiky” applicant here to stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

You're making my point for me. Obviously humans are not born with this foundation so he's not interested in the early stages of providing this foundation to young people.

This poster clearly only wants students that have already been through the foundational part. The ones that still are on the zero range of building the foundation should not be in this person's class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

You don’t sound like a good researcher or have good critical thinking skills. The high schoolers who can readily do research are the top of the top. They typically end up being the top admits of top colleges. Comparing them to your random undergraduate students from a who knows which university is a sign low intelligence. Not sure how you got your faculty position or aretoday’s professors just this crappy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

You're making my point for me. Obviously humans are not born with this foundation so he's not interested in the early stages of providing this foundation to young people.

This poster clearly only wants students that have already been through the foundational part. The ones that still are on the zero range of building the foundation should not be in this person's class.

They should just take the foundation classes in college and grad school before embarking on real research. They can obviously shadow a bit or provide a little peripheral help in the meanwhile, but they shouldn’t be “helicoptered” to complete a research project or paper and pass for as their own!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

You're making my point for me. Obviously humans are not born with this foundation so he's not interested in the early stages of providing this foundation to young people.

This poster clearly only wants students that have already been through the foundational part. The ones that still are on the zero range of building the foundation should not be in this person's class.

They should just take the foundation classes in college and grad school before embarking on real research. They can obviously shadow a bit or provide a little peripheral help in the meanwhile, but they shouldn’t be “helicoptered” to complete a research project or paper and pass for as their own!

You seem like you have limited experience with all the needy kids out here that want to do some science research in high school. Lots of high schools run science programs and have science research programs that start at the beginning of high school.

Middle schools even have some science, education and research for students that have an interest. There's lots of supergeeks out here that think science is interesting.

Expand your horizons.

[Anonymous]

Meant nerdy not needy. But nerds need to nerd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

You're making my point for me. Obviously humans are not born with this foundation so he's not interested in the early stages of providing this foundation to young people.

This poster clearly only wants students that have already been through the foundational part. The ones that still are on the zero range of building the foundation should not be in this person's class.

They should just take the foundation classes in college and grad school before embarking on real research. They can obviously shadow a bit or provide a little peripheral help in the meanwhile, but they shouldn’t be “helicoptered” to complete a research project or paper and pass for as their own!

Huh? Why bother teaching a kid sports fundamentals until they get to college? Why bother with teaching someone to read when they're young. Wait till they get to college and they can read the good stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

You're making my point for me. Obviously humans are not born with this foundation so he's not interested in the early stages of providing this foundation to young people.

This poster clearly only wants students that have already been through the foundational part. The ones that still are on the zero range of building the foundation should not be in this person's class.

They should just take the foundation classes in college and grad school before embarking on real research. They can obviously shadow a bit or provide a little peripheral help in the meanwhile, but they shouldn’t be “helicoptered” to complete a research project or paper and pass for as their own!

You seem like you have limited experience with all the needy kids out here that want to do some science research in high school. Lots of high schools run science programs and have science research programs that start at the beginning of high school.

Middle schools even have some science, education and research for students that have an interest. There's lots of supergeeks out here that think science is interesting.

Expand your horizons.

And you call that “research”? I’m afraid you’re the one who needs to expand your horizons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

You're making my point for me. Obviously humans are not born with this foundation so he's not interested in the early stages of providing this foundation to young people.

This poster clearly only wants students that have already been through the foundational part. The ones that still are on the zero range of building the foundation should not be in this person's class.

They should just take the foundation classes in college and grad school before embarking on real research. They can obviously shadow a bit or provide a little peripheral help in the meanwhile, but they shouldn’t be “helicoptered” to complete a research project or paper and pass for as their own!

You seem like you have limited experience with all the needy kids out here that want to do some science research in high school. Lots of high schools run science programs and have science research programs that start at the beginning of high school.

Middle schools even have some science, education and research for students that have an interest. There's lots of supergeeks out here that think science is interesting.

Expand your horizons.

And you call that “research”? I’m afraid you’re the one who needs to expand your horizons.

You seem ignorant and insecure. Young adults do not go to college as blank slates. People have learned and accomplished a lot of things by the time they turn 18 from sports to life skills to advancement in a variety of academic disciplines.

There is a wide range of skill level in young adults as there are in all people of all ages. You seem to have exposure to people on the lower end of that range. And then you have contempt for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

You're making my point for me. Obviously humans are not born with this foundation so he's not interested in the early stages of providing this foundation to young people.

This poster clearly only wants students that have already been through the foundational part. The ones that still are on the zero range of building the foundation should not be in this person's class.

They should just take the foundation classes in college and grad school before embarking on real research. They can obviously shadow a bit or provide a little peripheral help in the meanwhile, but they shouldn’t be “helicoptered” to complete a research project or paper and pass for as their own!

Huh? Why bother teaching a kid sports fundamentals until they get to college? Why bother with teaching someone to read when they're young. Wait till they get to college and they can read the good stuff.

One needs to have a solid understanding of the subject before embarking on real research. As simple as that. Of course, if the kid has already spent a couple of years learning the Ph.D. stuff, then it may work. But the high school kids here are barely taking the AP classes. There’s such a massive gap between even undergrad and Ph.D. levels. You can’t even skip algebra and geometry and precalc before jumping to calculus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

It’s such a breath of fresh air to see such a quality post on this forum!

I think the reason this outstanding post is so triggering is that most people are completely clueless what academic research is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Sounds like being involved in teaching young people about scientific research is not for you. You do realize that your older students were not born with the knowledge or skills that they have now. They learned it.

I’m not the person you’re reply to, but you’re mistaken. The PP has led and taught teams of young aspiring scientists built on solid foundations. This is quite different from helicoptering a kid with zero foundation who just wants unrealistic immediate deliverables to show to college AOs. No wonder many of these kids went on to consulting and investment firms. Most were never interested in “scientific knowledge” to begin with.

You're making my point for me. Obviously humans are not born with this foundation so he's not interested in the early stages of providing this foundation to young people.

This poster clearly only wants students that have already been through the foundational part. The ones that still are on the zero range of building the foundation should not be in this person's class.

They should just take the foundation classes in college and grad school before embarking on real research. They can obviously shadow a bit or provide a little peripheral help in the meanwhile, but they shouldn’t be “helicoptered” to complete a research project or paper and pass for as their own!

Huh? Why bother teaching a kid sports fundamentals until they get to college? Why bother with teaching someone to read when they're young. Wait till they get to college and they can read the good stuff.

One needs to have a solid understanding of the subject before embarking on real research. As simple as that. Of course, if the kid has already spent a couple of years learning the Ph.D. stuff, then it may work. But the high school kids here are barely taking the AP classes. There’s such a massive gap between even undergrad and Ph.D. levels. You can’t even skip algebra and geometry and precalc before jumping to calculus.

What are you even talking about. This is a college forum ... mostly focused on the transition from high school to college in fact. High school kids are not claiming to have phds.

There's a massive gap between high school tennis practice and Wimbledon. That doesn't mean there should not be high school tennis practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

It’s such a breath of fresh air to see such a quality post on this forum!

I think the reason this outstanding post is so triggering is that most people are completely clueless what academic research is about.

Well, it's certainly includes at least one arrogant snob posting on here

[Anonymous]

It's high school level research. Some high schoolers may be advanced at the college level, maybe higher. It doesn't matter. If they are genuinely interested and doing what they like, then colleges may recognize it. No college thinks they're doing Phd level research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside.

I don’t know why but I heard the Coming to America version of that on my head.