Science Fairs Aren’t “Fair”
Resource Disparity
Although students without mentors demonstrate advanced presentation skills and proper scientific methodology on par with those with mentors, they often find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The reason is that success often involves projects addressing hot and complex problems in the field, yet only students with internships and mentors can gain insight into these problems and access resources to conduct such projects. This creates a stark reality where many talented and passionate students may never achieve the recognition they deserve due to resource limitations, diminishing their passion and confidence in pursuing science and research.
Unequal Lab Access
Limited access to resources like advanced laboratory equipment and private datasets poses a substantial obstacle for students aiming to conduct innovative and competitive projects, even when possessing a novel idea. On the other hand, students with access to well-equipped laboratories are able to conduct innovative and impactful research, leading to a substantial competitive advantage. This disparity in laboratory facilities leads to science fairs unintentionally emphasizing not a student’s merit but rather on the amount of resources they possess.
Mentorship Disparity
Mentors play a crucial role in helping students conduct research projects, offering substantial assistance and advantages. Throughout the experimentation phase, mentors provide invaluable support, assisting students in overcoming challenges and offering advice to prevent errors, ensuring the project's successful execution. In the preparation of research presentations, mentors further contribute by aiding in the organization of key information and adhering to a professional approach and format. Conversely, students without mentors miss out on these benefits.
Inequitable Judging Practices
In science fairs, judging inconsistencies often arise due to varied perspectives, undermining the fairness of evaluations. Some judges may use a project’s complexity as a guideline for the significance and innovation of the project, while others may view high complexity negatively. Some judges may also possess more prior knowledge about a project, leading to different judging results. Addressing these judging disparities and establishing standard evaluations are essential for fostering an equitable environment where every project receives fair evaluation.
What we do.
HSSP is a nationally reaching science competition dedicated to fostering equity, passion, and confidence in STEM. The competition is 100% cost-free, ensuring accessibility for every student. Through our innovative evaluation and contest structure, HSSP aims to ensure everyone, including underprivileged individuals, an equal chance to win and receive recognition for their scientific achievement.
Our Solution.
Mitigating Disparities
HSSP employs a novel rubric to evaluate projects comprehensively, underscoring creativity, simplicity, and adherence to the scientific process. By incorporating a unique simplicity criterion, we aim to ensure that independently conducted projects, operating with limited resources, can potentially achieve higher scores and outcompete a complex mentored project. Ultimately, we are setting a fair playing field where anyone, with or without resources, can win. Further aspects of simplicity are considered and described in the rubric, all aiming to address resource disparity.
Standardizing Judging
By setting a new preference for projects that maximize innovation with simplicity, HSSP provides a straightforward guideline for judges to determine winners. This can help alleviate bias caused by differing judging perspectives on project complexity and prior knowledge on certain topics, ensuring that every project receives fair evaluation.
novel Competition Model
HSSP’s two-round format is further designed to eliminate potential judging bias and level the playing field. In the first round, students present concise video pitches on their projects, emphasizing creativity and simplicity. Each video is asynchronously judged by a minimum of three judges to eliminate the effects of bias. The second round mirrors a real science fair, requiring live presentations that allow deep exploration of projects. This round is judged by the same panel of judges to further eliminate bias, creating an equitable platform for every student to showcase groundbreaking projects.