
Intel to End Sponsorship of Science Talent Search - pbhowmic
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/technology/intel-to-end-sponsorship-of-science-talent-search.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
======
neilmovva
That is pretty disappointing to hear - Intel's execution and involvement with
the fair has been a great model for all STEM competition. The other major high
school research event, the Siemens Competition, seems much less rigorously
conducted (they're dropping the finalist talks for teleconference
presentations this year) and doesn't capture the same brand recognition that
STS does.

Still, since so few students interact with STS compared to, say, ISEF, it may
be that Intel is trying to expand its reach by de-emphasizing the elite and
looking to support the broadband "maker movement." It is also unlikely that
Google, which the article mentions, will pick up the banner - they run their
own Google Science Fair (which hasn't yet captured the prestige of STS). We'll
see how it goes, but I and many others will miss Intel's STS, the crown jewel
of high school competition.

~~~
elevenfist
"A great model"

Not really, it suffers from the same issues that most STEM competitions do.
The rewards go to the children of successful parents who gave their children
important aspects of their own research or self-funded them to develop an
existing idea.

The competition still has prestige, but most of the awardees didn't get where
they are on their own abilities and interests.

~~~
neilmovva
While I agree that perhaps we could use some more diversity in science
research competition, I think you underestimate the scale of work and
dedication required - look at Sara Volz, the 2013 winner, who notably did much
of her work in an improvised lab environment [1].

If you're interested, do take a look at the 2015 projects - Intel STS winners
are by no means coddled or fed on "fake" science. Perhaps there is an
undesirable concentration of talent in certain schools or regions, leading
some to question the privilege enjoyed by the winners, but there is no doubt
in my mind that the awardees have performed immensely well to deserve their
honors. By the way, some of the best labs/resources are also offered through
meritocratic selection - Harvard/MIT's RSI and Stanford's SIMR programs both
offer excellent mentorship and cutting-edge resources to summer students
through an application process. These students often end up winning these
competitions too, with no parent involvement.

[1]: [https://student.societyforscience.org/article/teens-win-
big-...](https://student.societyforscience.org/article/teens-win-big-their-
research)

------
artnep
Something's gotta go to free up some cash for Intel's $300M diversity
initiative.

~~~
dvhh
To be fair they already cut a lot of their workforce to free up that cash
(source :
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/10/intel_job_cuts_in_ju...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/10/intel_job_cuts_in_july/)
)

------
dvhh
When it comes to STEM, diversity sounds more like the current priority right
now.

------
dluan
One positive light is that before, there was only one big science fair which
sort of became the defacto prestigious award.

These days kids have so many more options for science fairs and competitions
by discipline, but none of them would exist had it not been for the Intel
Science Fair.

~~~
hugh4
I'm not so convinced by the value of these big science fairs.

It seems that they're inevitably won by some kid whose parents just _happen_
to be scientists, or who otherwise have a scientist in the family. And what
they get that's valuable isn't just the access to the lab, it's the suggestion
of a good project that's simple enough to do but which genuinely advances the
field of science.

For everyone else, the science fair looks nothing like real science. They wind
up spending a month playing music to a statistically insignificant number of
plants, getting an inconclusive result which they will nonetheless try to sell
as conclusive, and walk away thinking "Well, that was stupid".

I'm all for involving children in the process of doing _real_ science (as
opposed to the "experiments" they usually do, which are just demonstrations).
But formulating and testing a proper scientific hypothesis that will genuinely
advance the field is way beyond the capability of almost every child, and
indeed most beginning PhD students, because they don't know where the limits
of human knowledge are just yet.

~~~
mturmon
I agree regarding influence of parents. I've seen projects that seemed to
depend on access to lab equipment from a parent's lab.

Another problem is the competition concept itself, which is myopically focused
on the lone genius concept. A lot of real science has to do with noticing
others' work and collaborating with them effectively in a complementary way.

Support for Maker fairs may actually make sense for a change.

Here's a good historical summary which I read on HN:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-
sci...](http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-science-
fairs-arent-so-fair/387547/)

HN comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207686](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207686)

~~~
pitt1980
"noticing others' work and collaborating with them effectively in a
complementary way"

I'd love an example of what you're talking about

~~~
DaveWalk
Collaboration has quickly become the de facto standard in the life sciences.
There are examples in every discipline; to give you something specific would
only highlight my ignorance of other fields. It happens between members of the
same lab group, between groups and between institutions. The single-author
publication is becoming a rarity.

For an example from my own experience, researcher A makes a groundbreaking
discovery in a disease, and collaborates with mouse expert researcher B at a
different institution to develop a model for this. For the most part, any
paper in a respected journal with authors from various institutions reflects
an aspect of this collaboration.

------
pinewurst
One personally annoying thing about this article is that it mentions Ray
Kurzweil as a previous winner, citing him as "well-known author and director
of engineering at Google". He's done so many interesting, worthwhile things
but taking a paycheck from an ad business is considered his peak?

~~~
Zhenya
Bitter much?

Working at Google is how the public can relate to him. If they want to do more
research, wiki is easily reachable - via Google.

~~~
pinewurst
It's not bitterness at all. It's like identifying Abraham Lincoln as "railroad
lawyer" or Harry Truman as "haberdasher". Is "Once employed by Google" to be
Guido Van Rossum's epitaph?

