Sabio Column

How to win at Regional Science Fairs Part 1

by James H. Choi
http://Column.SabioAcademy.com
james.choi@sabioacademy.com

Dear Sabio Students,

The Regional Science Fairs are the last obstacle between you and the ISEF (International Science and Engineering Fair). The ISEF pays for you to vacation with science geniuses from all around the world, and the fair’s host organization goes out of its way to entertain you. In 2011, the host took finalists to Universal Studios in L.A. And it holds dance parties too. All expenses, including hotel and airfare, are paid, and you get a stipend to spend on whatever will enhance your attitude that “life is good.”

But succeeding at the regional fairs is hard; the winners are few. This document shows you how many winners go to ISEF from your region; just find your Regional Science Fair in the document.

So how many went to ISEF from your region? And how many entered? Chances are, you have 100:1 to 1000:1 competition (i.e., you’re competing against 100 to 1000 other students). Granted, most of them are clueless. “My mom told me to do this,” they’ll say. But it takes only two or three serious competitors to nudge you off the winners’ podium. One reason there are so few winners is that they cost money. Every winner costs an ISEF sponsor thousands of dollars — for the airfare, hotel, and (yes) that handsome stipend. It’s actually against the rule for the student to pay for anything.

Plenty of students make it to their states’ science fairs. But they won’t go further, to the regional fairs . You must, and you must do well there — because only succeeding at the regional fair qualifies you for ISEF.

In addition to selecting only a few winners out of hundreds, the regional science fair makes your job harder because of all the criteria its judges set. If you were Einstein standing in front of the judges and explaining the newly discovered Special Theory of Relativity, you would still lose the fair if your poster weren’t the right size, or if you were shy and acted like it, such as by not looking the judges in the eye.

No (g00d) sports player is going to enter a game without knowing the rules. But many Science Fair contestants are clueless! Don’t be one of them. To learn the rules, study this Chicago Regional Science Fair Scoring Rubrics. (Find your specific region’s rules and prepare your presentation accordingly.) Look at that sheet: How scientifically profound your research is comprises only a small part of the maximum 53 points! But how you ran the experiment and how you validated the results each count more than whatever great truth your experiment uncovers in its conclusion. If you lose just a few points in the “Display” and “Presentation” criteria sections (which together total 16 points), you won’t stand a chance to win even if you were Einstein.

Those who are doing simulation research need to prepare especially well because they also must explain why they should get a full score on an extra “Experimental Approach” section. A good sample argument might look like this:

This research’s purpose is to reduce the need for doing actual experiments. There are many experiments that are too costly (e.g., car-crash tests), too destructive (e.g., the effect of a nuclear power plant explosion) or impossible (e.g., what would happen to the tide if we had two Moons?). Simulation research like mine eliminates all unnecessary experiments and allows us to focus our money and time on the few areas that truly require experiments.

or like this:

An experimental approach is built into this simulation. When I wrote an algorithm for the simulation, I had to decide on the approach, of course, and it is this: then show the flow chart.

As for the control group, you can say something along the lines of this:

I have implemented two different types of simulations. Type A serves as a control group because it was allowed to take a natural course. Type B is the test group because I actively regulated this and that (insert your variables here).

or this:

The simulation is the experiment, and what we observed in nature/industry/society is the control. My research is on how to improve what we already have in nature/industry/society by intervening using my algorithm.

As for the “Reliability of Data” section, show an impressive number of random numbers, initial conditions or variations on constants. All of those could be meaningless scientifically speaking. But the judges are conditioned to look for multiple experiments with averaged values, which account for random variations. Rather than trying to explain the preciseness of simulated digital data, do multiple runs by changing plausible variations to the first run, which makes it look similar to multiple runs, multiple measurements. You’ll lower the expected error type of traditional scientific experiments

If you did purely theoretical work, such as work with the Number Theory, then you need to explain why you should get a full score on estimating your experimental error. You need to invoke Pythagoras, who came up with the Pythagorean Theorem, which produces zero error. Also, bring up Einstein, who didn’t do a single experiment. The only equipment Einstein ever used was a blackboard, yet his purely theoretical work become a foundation of many technological developments. Emphasize that theoretical work like yours, and just like Einstein’s, opens doors for the experimenting scientists to test your theory, which in turn allow engineers to produce real gadgets, such as the iPad (or whatever a popular engineering product is at the time).

P.S.

A special words of caution for those who grew up in the Far East. You need to work on your firm handshakes and steady gazes into the judges’ eyes. These indicators of confidence are considered acts of rudeness in Far Eastern cultures (e.g., Japanese, Korean, Chinese.) Every time I judge someone from that culture, I am left with an impression that he or she has something to hide and suffers from a severe self-esteem problem — so I judge that student unworthy of being a winner. Even though I used to act like that student, I still succumb to this powerfully negative impression. Imagine what a judge unexposed to other cultures would think? You have no chance with anyone from the West if all you give is a dead-fish handshake and shifty, downcast eyes.

It sounds simple, but it takes a lot of practice to overcome this culture barrier. Every time I meet a dead-fish handshake student, I correct the problem on the spot. I correct students’ gazes as well. It takes three or four tries before a student can do a half-way decent job of either, but I know they’ll revert back to the old handshake and eyes when I’m gone. Their facial expression says, “What is this weirdo doing? I have to forget this incident quickly!” They don’t understand I’m preparing them for Western judgments. So be sure to practice these gestures. Ask your teacher if your handshake seems confident or firm. And practice talking to an adult your parents’ age while looking into their eyes. Any teacher would be inspired by you asking for five minutes to practice this. If you feel you are rudely staring at the adult, then you are doing it right.