Congratulations to all NUSHS students participating in the Singapore Science and Engineering Fair 2011, on a sterling performance!
10 golds (out of 17 awarded)
5 silvers
11 bronzes
5 merits
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Monday, September 20, 2010
Times Higher Education 2010-2011 rankings
As many of you would have already known, this year, Times is linking up with a new data provider--Thomson Reuters-- to present their yearly university rankings. The most publicized change in the ranking methodology is the greater emphasis on research (reputation, volume and income) and a low emphasis on reputation (2009 rankings made use of opinion polls). I personally think that that is what brought CalTech up from 10th last year to 2nd this year, and what brought NUS down, albeit a little bit only i.e. four notches from 30 to 34.
Times Higher Education rankings: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/
The methodology: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html
Times Higher Education rankings: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/
The methodology: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/analysis-methodology.html
Thursday, September 9, 2010
How to Get Your Paper Published
I attended a seminar on how to get your papers published in journals by Richard Taylor early in December last year. Here are my notes.
-Think of a good idea. Read the literature; know what people have done, so you know what you can do that is novel. Find what is needed
Decide on the journal
-Type of paper
-Content
-Impact of research
-Most papers are rejected because they are sent to the wrong journal (work done in a mature field should be sent to specialized journals)
-Impact factor of journal
Check the instructions to authors
Different for each journal
-Consult earlier papers in that journal for style
-Check novelty – give due reference
-Avoid overblown claims and jargon (and abbreviations)
-Avoid "It has long been known that" (i.e. I don’t know the reference)
-Avoid "Correct to an order of magnitude" (means it’s wrong)
-Write a succinct cover letter outlining main advances/novelty. “I am writing a paper on __ by ___ for publication. We believe that this paper should be published because ____”
-Provide names and addresses/emails of referees. Similar areas, big-names, from country of journal, etc
-Ask editor if you need to follow the template
-Leave lots of time for the template; do everything on word and put it on a template at the end
-Get your reference number ready when calling the editor
-After editing with the referee’s comments, highlight changes, write down changes
What if your submission is rejected
1. Read the referees’ reports very carefully. Are there any factual errors?
2. Do you disagree with the decision? If yes, go to another journal
3. If you disagree – write a polite but persuasive letter to the editor explaining your point of view (and listing factual errors) – and ask for the decision to be reviewed
Richard Taylor. University of York, UK.
“How to get your paper published”
-Think of a good idea. Read the literature; know what people have done, so you know what you can do that is novel. Find what is needed
-Consult your colleagues
-Carry out your research
-Carry out your research
Decide on the journal
-Type of paper
-Content
-Impact of research
-Most papers are rejected because they are sent to the wrong journal (work done in a mature field should be sent to specialized journals)
-Impact factor of journal
Check the instructions to authors
Different for each journal
- Reference and experimental styles
- Page/reference limits
- Characterization of new compounds
- Supplementary info
Editors are trivial and pedantic
Advice on writing style: G.M. Whitesides, Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375
- Characterization of new compounds
- Supplementary info
Editors are trivial and pedantic
Advice on writing style: G.M. Whitesides, Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 1375
Check guidelines for authors
-Consult earlier papers in that journal for style
-Check novelty – give due reference
-Avoid overblown claims and jargon (and abbreviations)
-Avoid "It has long been known that" (i.e. I don’t know the reference)
-Avoid "Correct to an order of magnitude" (means it’s wrong)
-Write a succinct cover letter outlining main advances/novelty. “I am writing a paper on __ by ___ for publication. We believe that this paper should be published because ____”
-Provide names and addresses/emails of referees. Similar areas, big-names, from country of journal, etc
-Ask editor if you need to follow the template
-Leave lots of time for the template; do everything on word and put it on a template at the end
-Get your reference number ready when calling the editor
-After editing with the referee’s comments, highlight changes, write down changes
What if your submission is rejected
1. Read the referees’ reports very carefully. Are there any factual errors?
2. Do you disagree with the decision? If yes, go to another journal
3. If you disagree – write a polite but persuasive letter to the editor explaining your point of view (and listing factual errors) – and ask for the decision to be reviewed
[This was not part of the lecture] If all else fails, refer to http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=581
Friday, August 20, 2010
SSEF
Yo everyone, I've been reading this blog for some time now, and under Lay Kuan's influence, I've decided to contribute too. My first post here will be about the Singapore Science and Engineering Fair (SSEF), since it's one of the main highlights of my last year in school. A very memorable experience, got to meet many other research enthusiasts (like Chui Yi, although I didn't know her name back then) and spent quite a long while fidgeting and turning green at my booth (since I was the last group to get gold in my year, so I had to wait for pretty long and despair more and more as other groups were winning).
SSEF is, very roughly speaking, some sort of Olympiad for research. It's far more nebulous, and hence it has been criticised as not really reflective of the quality of the participants' research. This is due to the difficulty in assessing one's project. Much depends on whether the judge specialises in a certain field, whether your presentation is coherent, and whether you seem to be a trustworthy person (yes, they have this tendency to think someone else did the work for you). Nonetheless, these problems are the similar to those faced by researchers, so it's good to learn how to deal with them now. Besides, SSEF is great fun.
There are two parts to SSEF: doing good research (by extension, getting good results), and delivering it properly. This post will concentrate more on the latter.
Report
When writing the report, write the conclusions first. Of course, it's much easier to write in chronological order (writing what you did earlier first, followed by what you did later), but this is not suitable because of the SSEF page limit constraints. This is especially so if you did good research, which means you'll be overflowing with data. Some say you should just write everything down first and trim it down to size, but I found this method too difficult, too time consuming, and too painful (yes. It's like 'argh, I just had to delete a paragraph I spent an hour writing! nooo!').
Instead, I suggest you start with a focused conclusion showing what's your project's contribution to science. This will help to set the flow for the paper, and you will be less likely to include extraneous details into your report. I suggest writing three paragraphs, the first about results which were expected, the third about unexpected results, and the second somewhere in between. It's good to end off with a memorable and impactful statement about the practical application of your unexpected results (very important if you keep getting the 'what are the practical applications of your work?' from your friends/teachers/voices in your head). If you find that your report is still too long, edit the conclusions and try again.
An often overlooked thingy about writing reports (and posters, for that matter) is convention. Follow your own convention. By that I mean always have your title on the same place for all your excel graphs, use the same colour for the same sample when it appears in different graphs, use the same font for axis titles (and so on). Minutiae, I know, but this problem always pops up, especially if you happen to be as careless as I am. Or if it's a group project.
Poster
The backboard (or whatever you call it) the Science Center provides is big enough to fit a poster with dimensions greater than A0. Some people who are really desperate for space do that, but I think it's really awkward to have a non-A0 poster, the non-standard size makes me feel uneasy. More so if everyone nearby is doing A0 (they tend to do that). Any deviations from a single nice A0 poster should be done markedly, so much so that it looks intentionally different, rather than 'oops, I ran out of space and I can' t be bothered to edit it properly'. And at some poster shops, it can be 2 to 3 times more expensive than good ol' A0. The poster should be laminated matt (not glossy, you can't see the words with the light shining on the poster due to reflection). Poster Connection at Sunshine Plaza used to print rather cheaply (and pretty good quality too), but I heard it's more expensive of late.
As with the report, write the conclusions first. It should give you a general idea of how the poster should go. Regarding the exact flow of the poster, it's good to plop all your diagrams, pictures, and schematics on powerpoint first and arrange them such that they make sense. After which, add figure captions and some explanatory text and you have a poster. Like the report (and unlike powerpoint slides), posters are parallel axes of information, so don't repeat diagrams. It's fine to point to other parts of the poster when the need arises.
I recommend putting as many diagrams as possible and as little text as possible. By the time you present at SSEF, you should know your project well enough to say what you need to say to explain your stuff sufficiently well. On the other hand, it's rather clumsy to whip out a pencil and start drawing on the spot. Moreover, it's rather disconcerting when the judge seems to be reading the poster rather than listening to you.
One exception to this rule is to put brief definitions of certain jargon just after your introduction. If the audience can't remember a term you introduced earlier (this happens rather often), he/she can read it from the poster without interrupting you and feeling like an idiot. On top of all these, someone with background in your field should be able to look through your poster and have some idea what you're doing without you making the presentation. Not that the judges will do that and walk off, but well, it's good style.
Once you have a draft which bears some semblance to a poster, print it out on an A4 paper. The font should be big enough that it can be read even when shrunk down to A4. Practice presenting to friends and teachers, regardless of whether they are in your area or not. It is highly likely that you will get judges who are not specialists, so learn how to recognise the various signs of confusion and find methods of explaining your stuff without compromising the beauty of your project. For some projects, it may be useful to build a model to complement the poster presentation. I built one to show a 3D coordinate transformation which I calculated. Much easier to present. Besides, models are memorable.
The Day Itself
Make friends with the people around you (and give them your number). This is a must if yours is a solo project. The judges can come any time from 8am to 5pm, and it's rather difficult to stay at your booth all the time. Sticking a piece of paper which says 'Away, please call ' on your booth (or having it as a ppt slide on your computer, for that matter) doesn't give a particularly good impression. Ask your boothmate to call if you a judge comes. In my case, my first judge came around 3plus, and I was sitting on the floor sleeping (some HCI guys stole my chair. And my boothmate's chair). My boothmate woke me up, very thankfully.
There's no fixed style of judging. So far, I've heard of three.
1) The usual present first, Q&A later, with no time limit.
2) Give a quick summary (my juniors were asked to present in 3min), and then Q&A.
3) The judge comes and just asks questions (my first judge did that).
So be prepared. Also, some naughty judges may request a specific person in a team project to answer a certain question or present a certain part, so do practice everyone's part. One of my juniors even had to present while her teammate was not there (judge demanded it so).
During my year (2009), there were only 3 judges per project. From 2010 onwards, there's 4 to 6 judges per project. It's rather tiring, so think twice before submitting more than one project to SSEF.
Miscellaneous
It's quite nerve wrecking when they're giving out the prizes, so try not to stand in the middle of the crowd or you may get asphxyated. In any case, SSEF is not just about winning, but about getting to know your project and the projects of others in general better. Easier said than done, of course.
If you win any award (and signed up for A*TS during registration), they will call you back for another round. They will select 8 from that round to enter the final round, where the chief judge is some nobel laureate. The final round was especially nerve-wrecking, though that is a story for another day. I will most likely write a short post on A*TS soon.
(Will be updating this post when I remember more)
SSEF is, very roughly speaking, some sort of Olympiad for research. It's far more nebulous, and hence it has been criticised as not really reflective of the quality of the participants' research. This is due to the difficulty in assessing one's project. Much depends on whether the judge specialises in a certain field, whether your presentation is coherent, and whether you seem to be a trustworthy person (yes, they have this tendency to think someone else did the work for you). Nonetheless, these problems are the similar to those faced by researchers, so it's good to learn how to deal with them now. Besides, SSEF is great fun.
There are two parts to SSEF: doing good research (by extension, getting good results), and delivering it properly. This post will concentrate more on the latter.
Report
When writing the report, write the conclusions first. Of course, it's much easier to write in chronological order (writing what you did earlier first, followed by what you did later), but this is not suitable because of the SSEF page limit constraints. This is especially so if you did good research, which means you'll be overflowing with data. Some say you should just write everything down first and trim it down to size, but I found this method too difficult, too time consuming, and too painful (yes. It's like 'argh, I just had to delete a paragraph I spent an hour writing! nooo!').
Instead, I suggest you start with a focused conclusion showing what's your project's contribution to science. This will help to set the flow for the paper, and you will be less likely to include extraneous details into your report. I suggest writing three paragraphs, the first about results which were expected, the third about unexpected results, and the second somewhere in between. It's good to end off with a memorable and impactful statement about the practical application of your unexpected results (very important if you keep getting the 'what are the practical applications of your work?' from your friends/teachers/voices in your head). If you find that your report is still too long, edit the conclusions and try again.
An often overlooked thingy about writing reports (and posters, for that matter) is convention. Follow your own convention. By that I mean always have your title on the same place for all your excel graphs, use the same colour for the same sample when it appears in different graphs, use the same font for axis titles (and so on). Minutiae, I know, but this problem always pops up, especially if you happen to be as careless as I am. Or if it's a group project.
Poster
The backboard (or whatever you call it) the Science Center provides is big enough to fit a poster with dimensions greater than A0. Some people who are really desperate for space do that, but I think it's really awkward to have a non-A0 poster, the non-standard size makes me feel uneasy. More so if everyone nearby is doing A0 (they tend to do that). Any deviations from a single nice A0 poster should be done markedly, so much so that it looks intentionally different, rather than 'oops, I ran out of space and I can' t be bothered to edit it properly'. And at some poster shops, it can be 2 to 3 times more expensive than good ol' A0. The poster should be laminated matt (not glossy, you can't see the words with the light shining on the poster due to reflection). Poster Connection at Sunshine Plaza used to print rather cheaply (and pretty good quality too), but I heard it's more expensive of late.
As with the report, write the conclusions first. It should give you a general idea of how the poster should go. Regarding the exact flow of the poster, it's good to plop all your diagrams, pictures, and schematics on powerpoint first and arrange them such that they make sense. After which, add figure captions and some explanatory text and you have a poster. Like the report (and unlike powerpoint slides), posters are parallel axes of information, so don't repeat diagrams. It's fine to point to other parts of the poster when the need arises.
I recommend putting as many diagrams as possible and as little text as possible. By the time you present at SSEF, you should know your project well enough to say what you need to say to explain your stuff sufficiently well. On the other hand, it's rather clumsy to whip out a pencil and start drawing on the spot. Moreover, it's rather disconcerting when the judge seems to be reading the poster rather than listening to you.
One exception to this rule is to put brief definitions of certain jargon just after your introduction. If the audience can't remember a term you introduced earlier (this happens rather often), he/she can read it from the poster without interrupting you and feeling like an idiot. On top of all these, someone with background in your field should be able to look through your poster and have some idea what you're doing without you making the presentation. Not that the judges will do that and walk off, but well, it's good style.
Once you have a draft which bears some semblance to a poster, print it out on an A4 paper. The font should be big enough that it can be read even when shrunk down to A4. Practice presenting to friends and teachers, regardless of whether they are in your area or not. It is highly likely that you will get judges who are not specialists, so learn how to recognise the various signs of confusion and find methods of explaining your stuff without compromising the beauty of your project. For some projects, it may be useful to build a model to complement the poster presentation. I built one to show a 3D coordinate transformation which I calculated. Much easier to present. Besides, models are memorable.
The Day Itself
Make friends with the people around you (and give them your number). This is a must if yours is a solo project. The judges can come any time from 8am to 5pm, and it's rather difficult to stay at your booth all the time. Sticking a piece of paper which says 'Away, please call ' on your booth (or having it as a ppt slide on your computer, for that matter) doesn't give a particularly good impression. Ask your boothmate to call if you a judge comes. In my case, my first judge came around 3plus, and I was sitting on the floor sleeping (some HCI guys stole my chair. And my boothmate's chair). My boothmate woke me up, very thankfully.
There's no fixed style of judging. So far, I've heard of three.
1) The usual present first, Q&A later, with no time limit.
2) Give a quick summary (my juniors were asked to present in 3min), and then Q&A.
3) The judge comes and just asks questions (my first judge did that).
So be prepared. Also, some naughty judges may request a specific person in a team project to answer a certain question or present a certain part, so do practice everyone's part. One of my juniors even had to present while her teammate was not there (judge demanded it so).
During my year (2009), there were only 3 judges per project. From 2010 onwards, there's 4 to 6 judges per project. It's rather tiring, so think twice before submitting more than one project to SSEF.
Some of the less specific questions which were posed to me
-What was the hardest part of your project?
-How much help did you receive from your mentor?
-What is Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction? (I really got this question)
-How do you convert milliradians to degrees? (This one too, no kidding)
-Are you Singaporean? (Whaaaat?)
Miscellaneous
It's quite nerve wrecking when they're giving out the prizes, so try not to stand in the middle of the crowd or you may get asphxyated. In any case, SSEF is not just about winning, but about getting to know your project and the projects of others in general better. Easier said than done, of course.
If you win any award (and signed up for A*TS during registration), they will call you back for another round. They will select 8 from that round to enter the final round, where the chief judge is some nobel laureate. The final round was especially nerve-wrecking, though that is a story for another day. I will most likely write a short post on A*TS soon.
(Will be updating this post when I remember more)
Examples of APA Citation style
See here for a good website on how to cite references for scientific papers, homework, lab reports, etc, properly.
EDIT: 22 August 2010
'nana' suggests using this site instead. Many thanks for the suggestion!
EDIT: 22 August 2010
'nana' suggests using this site instead. Many thanks for the suggestion!
Monday, May 3, 2010
An application to YRP
You can download the application form (its a word document) from the YRP website and type in your answers.
Besides listing all your contact information, CAPs, and other CCAs, you'll be asked to write two short descriptions about your research experiences and your area of interest at YRP. This is a sample of what I wrote at the beginning of 2009, when I was in year 6. My attachment was in June that year but later extended to July.
List any prior experience you have in scientific research:
In 2007, I did a project under the Science Mentorship program (SMP) entitled Synthesis of Novel N-Heterocyclic and Fluorene-consisting Small Molecules as Fluorescent Probes. Insert abstract here. My team member and I presented a poster at the SMP opening ceremony.
In 2008, I did another project under the Science Research Program and the NUS Bioengineering division. The project was entitled Design and Fabrication of Microfludic devices and optimization of separation of two different beads in the detection area. Insert abstract here.
Write a short essay on what you understand by scientific research and which area of research (those offered by IBN) you are most interested in and why.
Scientific research should be used either to improve the lives of Man or to expand our knowledge. From what my projects have shown me, it may take months or even before any fruitful results manifest themselves. Sometimes, projects simply fail because they were not meant to be in the first place, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment on luminiferous aether. I believe some of the traits a good researcher must have are persistence, enthusiasm, stubbornness in face of what may seem like a worthless project, patience, and a willingness to go the extra mile. The study of anything has never been easy, but to plunge into the unknown is much harder, but also much more challenging and rewarding to the scientist, and hopefully mankind as well.
Cell and Tissue Engineering is one area I am keen to take up. Recently, there has been a lot of fanfare about shortage of kidney donors in Singapore, due to the debate about whether kidney donors should be offered financial compensation in a bid to increase the pool of donors. I found it very sad that many had to wait at least nine years for a kidney, and even more were struck off the list if they got too ill or old. This is one field I am considering for my future career as I hope to contribute to the development of man made organs and tissues to make life much easier for kidney patients and other patients on the waiting list for an organ which they may never receive.
***
There will be two rounds of interviews. First round will be about your research interest, why you want to participate, and the like. Second round will usually be with the YRP Chair. In both cases, be prepared to talk about yourself, your school life, interesting activities you have participated in, and your rationale for choosing your area of interest. Usually, the YRP officers work quite fast after you've been offered an interview. From what I can tell, attachments are offered to decent number of applicants. Participants are expected to do a short presentation on their findings before their attachment terminates.
Besides listing all your contact information, CAPs, and other CCAs, you'll be asked to write two short descriptions about your research experiences and your area of interest at YRP. This is a sample of what I wrote at the beginning of 2009, when I was in year 6. My attachment was in June that year but later extended to July.
List any prior experience you have in scientific research:
In 2007, I did a project under the Science Mentorship program (SMP) entitled Synthesis of Novel N-Heterocyclic and Fluorene-consisting Small Molecules as Fluorescent Probes. Insert abstract here. My team member and I presented a poster at the SMP opening ceremony.
In 2008, I did another project under the Science Research Program and the NUS Bioengineering division. The project was entitled Design and Fabrication of Microfludic devices and optimization of separation of two different beads in the detection area. Insert abstract here.
Write a short essay on what you understand by scientific research and which area of research (those offered by IBN) you are most interested in and why.
Scientific research should be used either to improve the lives of Man or to expand our knowledge. From what my projects have shown me, it may take months or even before any fruitful results manifest themselves. Sometimes, projects simply fail because they were not meant to be in the first place, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment on luminiferous aether. I believe some of the traits a good researcher must have are persistence, enthusiasm, stubbornness in face of what may seem like a worthless project, patience, and a willingness to go the extra mile. The study of anything has never been easy, but to plunge into the unknown is much harder, but also much more challenging and rewarding to the scientist, and hopefully mankind as well.
Cell and Tissue Engineering is one area I am keen to take up. Recently, there has been a lot of fanfare about shortage of kidney donors in Singapore, due to the debate about whether kidney donors should be offered financial compensation in a bid to increase the pool of donors. I found it very sad that many had to wait at least nine years for a kidney, and even more were struck off the list if they got too ill or old. This is one field I am considering for my future career as I hope to contribute to the development of man made organs and tissues to make life much easier for kidney patients and other patients on the waiting list for an organ which they may never receive.
***
There will be two rounds of interviews. First round will be about your research interest, why you want to participate, and the like. Second round will usually be with the YRP Chair. In both cases, be prepared to talk about yourself, your school life, interesting activities you have participated in, and your rationale for choosing your area of interest. Usually, the YRP officers work quite fast after you've been offered an interview. From what I can tell, attachments are offered to decent number of applicants. Participants are expected to do a short presentation on their findings before their attachment terminates.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Nurturing our future scientists
The author is a scientific researcher in Singapore. Food for thought for everyone interested in research.
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090727-157369.html
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090727-157369.html
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Independent Research
Research is something that confuses many people; parents, new NUSHS students (I shall hence call you all freshmen) and even existing NUSHS students. I shan't endeavour to define research, but let us take a look at research in NUS High and the opportunities it provides.
I'll like to start with the history of research in NUS High School. Details are sketchy, in 2005 some forms of research did exist and it was called IPW (Independent Project Work)[Thanks to Royston for providing the information]. The projects available at that time were not very in-depth due to the lack of equipment available; e.g. proper DNA extraction was not possible. Projects then latched mainly on external resources or were simple, investigative projects.
Sometime later in 2006 the programme would come to be known as Independent Research or IR for short. More students began taking up research projects since the Batch of 2005 was in their fourth year and the move to the new campus along Clementi Avenue 1 provided enhanced lab facilities. In 2007 the programme was formalized and a curriculum (of sorts) was drawn up. It was called AXIS. In that year the first Research Congress was held to showcase students' research work. From 2008 to 2009, the programme was renamed as Da Vinci after the famous polymath and all Year 5/6 students partake in research projects, (Advanced Research Projects, or ARPs) either with external organizations, or with internal mentors.
That being said, what's in it for everyone? Firstly, an ARP is a graduation requirement, meaning that you will either have to take a project in Year 5 or Year 6 and obtain a satisfactory grade. The nature of the project can vary - Some people opt to do high level research such as Quantum Mechanics, Femtochemistry or Proteomics with external organizations. This list is certainly not exhaustive. Others opt to do research in current, familiar areas such as alternative energy or just applying concepts learnt in NUS High School. Note that the burden for the former category is significantly higher, but as with all things, you will reap rewards proportional to the amount of effort put in.
Research from Year 1 to Year 4 is a bit tricky. You will recall I mentioned that in 2005 a number of research projects existed (even for Year 1s - I did one), but as of now the Year 1 to 3 programme is such that a series of workshops and courses are conducted to familiarize students with the requirements for research. These include things like problem solving and research methodology, and you will use these things subconsciously, if not consciously, when you begin your research projects. Some Year 4s do opt to begin their own research, but due to the limited number of projects it may not always be possible (More on this later!). My tip here for Year 4s or prospective Year 4s is that if you do so and your project excels, it may be wise to contemplate converting your project to an ARP. Inquire with relevant people for the procedures.
Ok, so now we know how research is like, but what's the big deal? Research speaks you on your CV as much as any other credential. It is hard to represent time spent by receiving an award for "Good Progress", but citing your research and any awards it might have received instantly says that you have put in significant effort and speaks volumes about your analytical skills. Some scholarships and awards will ask you to demonstrate that you have the necessary aptitude in Science, and research is a good way to put it across to them. Secondly, there are many opportunities for you to shine in research. Projects can be sent to conferences or fairs, or better still, published. For the uninitiated, conferences are events where you put up a poster or deliver a speech regarding your project. As such, these conferences are normally very specific. Invited papers to international conferences, should you be honoured, are very prestigious. Fairs, such as the Singapore Science and Engineering Fair (SSEF), or the Singapore Youth Science Fair (SYSF), offer good awards. In particular, winning a gold at the SSEF is considered to be one of the highlights of JC Science life. Singapore's representatives to the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) are selected from SSEF Gold medalists.
I will dedicate a separate section to publishing and beyond. There is no exact Science to this, but there's a general rule of thumb that publishing and applying for a patent are extremely good accolades if you are able to reach that stage. Professors normally will encourage you to write a paper if your research is promising. For that matter, think for a moment how many people under the age of 18 will have actually published papers in international journals. A patent is much more complicated - It states that you have actually invented something, and you own the rights to that invention.
Getting research to that level however, requires a good amount of time invested in it. Research, like all subjects, requires practice. It is normal that the first research project you do will be a little lack-luster, and rightfully so, because you are not familiar with the ropes and the nature of the industry. Once you get used to the rhythm of research, you will be able to progress much quickly. As a rule of thumb, if you are lucky enough to get a good research mentor, stay with him and learn as much as you can. So long you work hard, you should be able to join a higher level project with the same mentor when you start your research again.
A number of organizations like A*Star (do a search or look up the College Councillors) open research projects to independent students. In other words, you can apply on your own. I personally recommend that you do not do so until you are about 15 years old, i.e. Year 3, because the rigour of industrial research attachments are even higher than that of scholastic environments. People there do research for profit and occasionally race against time to beat competitors to the market. It is however, valuable experience and such projects often have potential. Always remember that the key to research is to work at the cutting-edge. No one wants to know if you found out how many times a day sheep baa, but everyone will want to know if you managed to turn sheep manure into Methanol xD.
I'll like to start with the history of research in NUS High School. Details are sketchy, in 2005 some forms of research did exist and it was called IPW (Independent Project Work)[Thanks to Royston for providing the information]. The projects available at that time were not very in-depth due to the lack of equipment available; e.g. proper DNA extraction was not possible. Projects then latched mainly on external resources or were simple, investigative projects.
Sometime later in 2006 the programme would come to be known as Independent Research or IR for short. More students began taking up research projects since the Batch of 2005 was in their fourth year and the move to the new campus along Clementi Avenue 1 provided enhanced lab facilities. In 2007 the programme was formalized and a curriculum (of sorts) was drawn up. It was called AXIS. In that year the first Research Congress was held to showcase students' research work. From 2008 to 2009, the programme was renamed as Da Vinci after the famous polymath and all Year 5/6 students partake in research projects, (Advanced Research Projects, or ARPs) either with external organizations, or with internal mentors.
That being said, what's in it for everyone? Firstly, an ARP is a graduation requirement, meaning that you will either have to take a project in Year 5 or Year 6 and obtain a satisfactory grade. The nature of the project can vary - Some people opt to do high level research such as Quantum Mechanics, Femtochemistry or Proteomics with external organizations. This list is certainly not exhaustive. Others opt to do research in current, familiar areas such as alternative energy or just applying concepts learnt in NUS High School. Note that the burden for the former category is significantly higher, but as with all things, you will reap rewards proportional to the amount of effort put in.
Research from Year 1 to Year 4 is a bit tricky. You will recall I mentioned that in 2005 a number of research projects existed (even for Year 1s - I did one), but as of now the Year 1 to 3 programme is such that a series of workshops and courses are conducted to familiarize students with the requirements for research. These include things like problem solving and research methodology, and you will use these things subconsciously, if not consciously, when you begin your research projects. Some Year 4s do opt to begin their own research, but due to the limited number of projects it may not always be possible (More on this later!). My tip here for Year 4s or prospective Year 4s is that if you do so and your project excels, it may be wise to contemplate converting your project to an ARP. Inquire with relevant people for the procedures.
Ok, so now we know how research is like, but what's the big deal? Research speaks you on your CV as much as any other credential. It is hard to represent time spent by receiving an award for "Good Progress", but citing your research and any awards it might have received instantly says that you have put in significant effort and speaks volumes about your analytical skills. Some scholarships and awards will ask you to demonstrate that you have the necessary aptitude in Science, and research is a good way to put it across to them. Secondly, there are many opportunities for you to shine in research. Projects can be sent to conferences or fairs, or better still, published. For the uninitiated, conferences are events where you put up a poster or deliver a speech regarding your project. As such, these conferences are normally very specific. Invited papers to international conferences, should you be honoured, are very prestigious. Fairs, such as the Singapore Science and Engineering Fair (SSEF), or the Singapore Youth Science Fair (SYSF), offer good awards. In particular, winning a gold at the SSEF is considered to be one of the highlights of JC Science life. Singapore's representatives to the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) are selected from SSEF Gold medalists.
I will dedicate a separate section to publishing and beyond. There is no exact Science to this, but there's a general rule of thumb that publishing and applying for a patent are extremely good accolades if you are able to reach that stage. Professors normally will encourage you to write a paper if your research is promising. For that matter, think for a moment how many people under the age of 18 will have actually published papers in international journals. A patent is much more complicated - It states that you have actually invented something, and you own the rights to that invention.
Getting research to that level however, requires a good amount of time invested in it. Research, like all subjects, requires practice. It is normal that the first research project you do will be a little lack-luster, and rightfully so, because you are not familiar with the ropes and the nature of the industry. Once you get used to the rhythm of research, you will be able to progress much quickly. As a rule of thumb, if you are lucky enough to get a good research mentor, stay with him and learn as much as you can. So long you work hard, you should be able to join a higher level project with the same mentor when you start your research again.
A number of organizations like A*Star (do a search or look up the College Councillors) open research projects to independent students. In other words, you can apply on your own. I personally recommend that you do not do so until you are about 15 years old, i.e. Year 3, because the rigour of industrial research attachments are even higher than that of scholastic environments. People there do research for profit and occasionally race against time to beat competitors to the market. It is however, valuable experience and such projects often have potential. Always remember that the key to research is to work at the cutting-edge. No one wants to know if you found out how many times a day sheep baa, but everyone will want to know if you managed to turn sheep manure into Methanol xD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)