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

[Anonymous]

all these discussions sound more like parents ego

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope the kids truly enjoy the process.

While my kid learned a lot and enjoyed working with the mentor and other interns, my kid ended up NOT enjoying the actual research bits so it helped them eliminate some career options.

So it was beneficial in a few ways.

[Anonymous]

Just like extracurriculars — many of them serve a purpose that only your family truly understands.

That still doesn’t change the fact that intrinsic value and real talent don’t need validation through vanity metrics. There’s no point trying to convince other people. Just because you can or cannot do something doesn’t make it anyone else’s business

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the world does not care about extracurriculars. if you are winning academic olympiads, that's one thing but your passionate interest in the migration patterns of mosquitoes in suburban environments, followed up by research and a published paper in some foreign journal nobody has ever heard of is generally meaningless.

True for the rest of the world, but this is planet USA. And a published paper on the migration patterns of mosquitoes in suburban environments will go pretty darn far. It demonstrates smarts, discipline, passion. Every selective school would be interested in this high school student. High test scores and GPA are a dime a dozen. Every selective university could fill their classes ten times over with kids with perfect stats. But here is someone with a compelling interest in mosquitos in the suburbs and is bringing the chops.

This is why American universities are generally the best universities in the world. They will take the mosquito kid. Whereas the test oriented countries like Korea, China, Japan, the UK and so on won't. That mosquito kid is the separation American universities have from universities elsewhere. And consequentially, nearly all important innovation happens in the US and not elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

I’ll give you a hint. There’s research programs and opportunities given out to highly talented first gen low income students. The people here don’t know about them because they’re mostly upper middle class or even wealthy.

It’s the reason this forum never talks about Thrive or Questbridge (other than to disparage it) or LEDA or CollegematchLA or Hamilton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the world does not care about extracurriculars. if you are winning academic olympiads, that's one thing but your passionate interest in the migration patterns of mosquitoes in suburban environments, followed up by research and a published paper in some foreign journal nobody has ever heard of is generally meaningless.

True for the rest of the world, but this is planet USA. And a published paper on the migration patterns of mosquitoes in suburban environments will go pretty darn far. It demonstrates smarts, discipline, passion. Every selective school would be interested in this high school student. High test scores and GPA are a dime a dozen. Every selective university could fill their classes ten times over with kids with perfect stats. But here is someone with a compelling interest in mosquitos in the suburbs and is bringing the chops.

This is why American universities are generally the best universities in the world. They will take the mosquito kid. Whereas the test oriented countries like Korea, China, Japan, the UK and so on won't. That mosquito kid is the separation American universities have from universities elsewhere. And consequentially, nearly all important innovation happens in the US and not elsewhere.

I am not sure people outside of US still agree the highlighted line. (ok but if that's the coping mechanism for Americans). Ironically media keeps telling everyone US universities ranking is slipping when compared to non-US colleges.

[Anonymous]

Reading this thread — and honestly this forum in general — makes me question what the mission and purpose of college really is anymore.

I keep thinking about what kids are being put through from K–12. Are we helping them become competent adults, or just stressed, selfish, and resentful ones? If students are already taking endless AP classes in high school, what exactly are they supposed to learn in college? If a child is doing research and taking Calculus III at an incredibly young age, why is college even necessary? And if someone is already deeply committed to sports or music at a professional level, how much additional value does college really add to their life? Shouldn’t they just focus on becoming professionals in their field instead?

[Anonymous]

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

Olympiads can be, and most often are, self-studied with free resources.

From an IPhO gold medalist:

When I was in high school, I heard about the Physics Olympiad from my physics teacher, spent an afternoon searching online for a book recommendation, and bugged my parents to buy Halliday, Resnick, and Krane. They got me a $20 used copy with the spine falling off, and I spent an enjoyable year puzzling over it by myself, reading it on the weekends and during chemistry class. When I
went to the IPhO that summer, I still only had that one book, held together with layers of tape.
This shows that Olympiads are one of the most accessible high school activities in the world. If
you want to be a chess prodigy, a musician, or an elite athlete, you need expensive coaches, and
parents who will drive you to practice and fly you to competitions around the world. If you want to
do robotics, you need to go to a high school whose club has a five-figure budget, and if you want to
do research, you’ll almost always be doing it in a university lab with a multimillion dollar budget.
But to learn physics, you only need one book and your own mind.

Source: https://knzhou.github.io/handouts/FAQ.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread — and honestly this forum in general — makes me question what the mission and purpose of college really is anymore.

I keep thinking about what kids are being put through from K–12. Are we helping them become competent adults, or just stressed, selfish, and resentful ones? If students are already taking endless AP classes in high school, what exactly are they supposed to learn in college? If a child is doing research and taking Calculus III at an incredibly young age, why is college even necessary? And if someone is already deeply committed to sports or music at a professional level, how much additional value does college really add to their life? Shouldn’t they just focus on becoming professionals in their field instead?

Of course colleges are necessary. Stanford and MIT have put all their classes online, so anyone can learn any topic free of tuition. Obviously you don't just go there to take classes. Kids still go to college for like-minded peers, opportunities provided by top colleges, and a social environment during their formative years. You'd be surprised that these kids are not "stressed, selfish, and resentful", quite the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread — and honestly this forum in general — makes me question what the mission and purpose of college really is anymore.

I keep thinking about what kids are being put through from K–12. Are we helping them become competent adults, or just stressed, selfish, and resentful ones? If students are already taking endless AP classes in high school, what exactly are they supposed to learn in college? If a child is doing research and taking Calculus III at an incredibly young age, why is college even necessary? And if someone is already deeply committed to sports or music at a professional level, how much additional value does college really add to their life? Shouldn’t they just focus on becoming professionals in their field instead?

Of course colleges are necessary. Stanford and MIT have put all their classes online, so anyone can learn any topic free of tuition. Obviously you don't just go there to take classes. Kids still go to college for like-minded peers, opportunities provided by top colleges, and a social environment during their formative years. You'd be surprised that these kids are not "stressed, selfish, and resentful", quite the opposite.

This is what I read yesterday from NYTimes about Stanford. If this is the learning you are talking about.

```
Money in Silicon Valley has become a game of almost meaningless numbers bandied about in a breathtakingly casual manner. It contributes to the whirlpool effect students at Stanford have felt around tech and lucre — if your roommate can drop out and start a nine-figure company, why shouldn’t you profit, too? Why put all your energy into being a student when it seems like everyone around you is getting rich? One time during sophomore year, I was working on homework in my dorm common room with an acquaintance when she offhandedly remarked, “I bought a house in Las Vegas last week.” She continued, “It’s good for taxes.” It’s hard to put your earbuds in and get right back to your problem set when someone says something like that.
```

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread — and honestly this forum in general — makes me question what the mission and purpose of college really is anymore.

I keep thinking about what kids are being put through from K–12. Are we helping them become competent adults, or just stressed, selfish, and resentful ones? If students are already taking endless AP classes in high school, what exactly are they supposed to learn in college? If a child is doing research and taking Calculus III at an incredibly young age, why is college even necessary? And if someone is already deeply committed to sports or music at a professional level, how much additional value does college really add to their life? Shouldn’t they just focus on becoming professionals in their field instead?

Of course colleges are necessary. Stanford and MIT have put all their classes online, so anyone can learn any topic free of tuition. Obviously you don't just go there to take classes. Kids still go to college for like-minded peers, opportunities provided by top colleges, and a social environment during their formative years. You'd be surprised that these kids are not "stressed, selfish, and resentful", quite the opposite.

This is what I read yesterday from NYTimes about Stanford. If this is the learning you are talking about.

```
Money in Silicon Valley has become a game of almost meaningless numbers bandied about in a breathtakingly casual manner. It contributes to the whirlpool effect students at Stanford have felt around tech and lucre — if your roommate can drop out and start a nine-figure company, why shouldn’t you profit, too? Why put all your energy into being a student when it seems like everyone around you is getting rich? One time during sophomore year, I was working on homework in my dorm common room with an acquaintance when she offhandedly remarked, “I bought a house in Las Vegas last week.” She continued, “It’s good for taxes.” It’s hard to put your earbuds in and get right back to your problem set when someone says something like that.
```

Are they the "stressed, selfish, and resentful" kids you described?

And if you don't like Stanford, what kind of learning environment you would like your kids to have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading this thread — and honestly this forum in general — makes me question what the mission and purpose of college really is anymore.

I keep thinking about what kids are being put through from K–12. Are we helping them become competent adults, or just stressed, selfish, and resentful ones? If students are already taking endless AP classes in high school, what exactly are they supposed to learn in college? If a child is doing research and taking Calculus III at an incredibly young age, why is college even necessary? And if someone is already deeply committed to sports or music at a professional level, how much additional value does college really add to their life? Shouldn’t they just focus on becoming professionals in their field instead?

Of course colleges are necessary. Stanford and MIT have put all their classes online, so anyone can learn any topic free of tuition. Obviously you don't just go there to take classes. Kids still go to college for like-minded peers, opportunities provided by top colleges, and a social environment during their formative years. You'd be surprised that these kids are not "stressed, selfish, and resentful", quite the opposite.

This is what I read yesterday from NYTimes about Stanford. If this is the learning you are talking about.

```
Money in Silicon Valley has become a game of almost meaningless numbers bandied about in a breathtakingly casual manner. It contributes to the whirlpool effect students at Stanford have felt around tech and lucre — if your roommate can drop out and start a nine-figure company, why shouldn’t you profit, too? Why put all your energy into being a student when it seems like everyone around you is getting rich? One time during sophomore year, I was working on homework in my dorm common room with an acquaintance when she offhandedly remarked, “I bought a house in Las Vegas last week.” She continued, “It’s good for taxes.” It’s hard to put your earbuds in and get right back to your problem set when someone says something like that.
```

Are they the "stressed, selfish, and resentful" kids you described?

And if you don't like Stanford, what kind of learning environment you would like your kids to have?

I am indifferent. Everyone should pursue what they want. As long as it is ethical and legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Stupid MAGA narrative that has no basis in reality.

MAGAs dumb us down plenty.

GPA inflation and watering down SAT didn't happen in reality? Accusing math being racist didn’t happen? TJ reform trying to make it a lottery process didn’t happen? Which universe are you coming from?

No one is trying to “dumb down the entire population”, FFS.

GPA/SAT inflation and the AP arms race began decades ago and was driven from above by rich parents wanting their kids to get into top schools.

No kid is entitled to TJ; it’s a public school resource that should be accessible to all bright STEM kids in the area, not just the kids from the rich MSs who could afford to play the admissions game.

The only people talking about “math being racist” are the racist RWNJs distorting math reform — which is fundamentally all about having more kids take more math.

So were the SATs dumbed down for the rich parents or was TJ standards loosened to break up the rich kid monopoly on TJ seats?

The SATs were dumbed down because people didn't like the racial profile of the kids getting the best test scores. Sure there were plenty of white kids getting top test scores but not enough. Sure there were some URM getting high test scores but not enough.

Same thing at TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the world does not care about extracurriculars. if you are winning academic olympiads, that's one thing but your passionate interest in the migration patterns of mosquitoes in suburban environments, followed up by research and a published paper in some foreign journal nobody has ever heard of is generally meaningless.

True for the rest of the world, but this is planet USA. And a published paper on the migration patterns of mosquitoes in suburban environments will go pretty darn far. It demonstrates smarts, discipline, passion. Every selective school would be interested in this high school student. High test scores and GPA are a dime a dozen. Every selective university could fill their classes ten times over with kids with perfect stats. But here is someone with a compelling interest in mosquitos in the suburbs and is bringing the chops.

This is why American universities are generally the best universities in the world. They will take the mosquito kid. Whereas the test oriented countries like Korea, China, Japan, the UK and so on won't. That mosquito kid is the separation American universities have from universities elsewhere. And consequentially, nearly all important innovation happens in the US and not elsewhere.

American universities aren't among the best in the world because of the quality of the American students. Are you freaking kidding me? American university dominance is almost entirely about money and the job opportunities available to our graduates.

Are you under the impression that most of the innovation we see in America is coming from the "mosquito kids?" It's mostly coming from high scoring immigrants or the children of immigrants.

[Anonymous]

The fact that we still lay off Americans and increase h1b or outsource.