Trust the Process: Why College Admissions Do NOT Trust Student Publication

• Highlights
• Transcript

• College admissions committees want to see your passion, not your trophies. Admissions officers today are looking for authenticity and perseverance, not just a list of impressive but superficial accomplishments—so focus on genuine passion, collaboration and the slow process of research. This was the powerful message delivered during the panel titled All That Glitters Is Not Gold: The Lure of Showy Publications and the Pursuit of Authentic Achievements at the Pioneer Academics Co-curricular Summit. As the pressure on high-achieving students to stand out intensifies, the panel urged students to resist the temptation of quick, glittering successes in favor of meaningful engagement with their work.

  Moderated by Matthew Jaskol, founder of Pioneer Academics, the panel featured Melissa Rodriguez, an admissions counselor at Caltech, Megan Canella, Director of Outreach at the Davidson Institute, and Professor Gregory Dresden, a mathematics professor at Washington and Lee University. Each panelist brought unique perspectives on how students should approach research, but they all agreed on one key point: the true value of research lies in the process, not in rushing toward the finish line.

  Jaskol started by addressing the immense pressure students face today to build impressive resumes. In the ultra-competitive college admissions landscape, students often feel compelled to secure leadership roles, volunteer hours and research publications just to stand out. However, Jaskol warned that this pressure can lead students to chase shortcuts, like paying for services that promise quick research publications.

  Professor Dresden, with over a decade of experience mentoring students in mathematics research, offered a reality check. “It’s almost impossible to produce a research-quality project or paper in just a short amount of time,” he stated, stressing that real research takes time. Even his most successful students who ultimately published their work did so long after their initial projects—sometimes taking years. “Anyone who promises publication in weeks or months is giving false expectations,” Dresden warned.

  Echoing this, Megan Canella added that the research process is not just slow but inherently collaborative. Working with profoundly gifted students at the Davidson Institute, Canella stressed that rushing through research in hopes of fast results deprives students of the full learning experience. “If it’s coming too easily, you’re probably not getting as much out of it as you could,” she explained. Canella urged students to focus on their genuine passions rather than pursuing accolades to boost their resumes.

  Melissa Rodriguez, speaking from the admissions perspective, debunked the notion that research publications are a requirement for top-tier universities like Caltech. Many of Caltech’s admitted students have not done formal research. Rodriguez explained that while research can demonstrate a passion for STEM, it’s not the only path to admission. What matters more is a student’s ability to face challenges and pursue their interests with genuine enthusiasm. “We care about the whole student, not just their accomplishments,” she stressed, reminding students that authentic passion outweighs a glossy list of achievements.

  The panel concluded with a strong message: students should pursue research for the right reasons—not to stand out in applications, but because they genuinely enjoy the work. True success, the panelists agreed, comes from embracing the process of learning, collaborating meaningfully, and staying true to one’s passions. It’s not the glittering achievements that matter most, but the perseverance and authenticity behind them.

  • 

    Melissa Rodriguez Admissions Counselor California Institute of Technology

  • 

    Megan Cannella Director of Outreach Davidson Institute

  • 

    Gregory Dresden Professor of Mathematics Washington and Lee University

• 00:00:04
  Ryan (Pioneer Academics): Alright! Welcome to our next panel, everyone. I hope you’re enjoying the pioneer academics co-curricular Summit as much as I am and I’m delighted to introduce our next panel, which will explore an important and probably under discussed question based by academically talented high schoolers.

  The title of this panel is All that Glitters is Not Gold, The Lure of Showy Publications and the Pursuit of Authentic Achievements.

  We have a diverse set of panelists for this discussion, each with unique relationships to both higher education and publication, and I’m sure that together they’ll be able to shed some light on the question of how high schoolers should think about developing trends of high schoolers publishing their research.

  00:00:46
  Ryan (Pioneer Academics): We have Melissa Rodriguez, who is an undergraduate admissions counselor at the California Institute of Technology, Megan Canella, the Director of Outreach at Davidson Institute.

  Professor Gregory Dresden, a professor of mathematics at Washington and Lee University and moderating our panel, will be Matthew Jaskol, the founder and program director of pioneer Academics. So please join me in welcoming the panel as best we can in this virtual format. The floor is yours, Matthew.

  00:01:14
  Matthew Jaskol: Thank you so much.

  So I am really excited to talk about this, and I’m excited to have the people here who will be able to offer their opinions. I’m going to give a brief introduction. So, as we all know, high achieving students who aspire to selective colleges face immense pressure to stand out in an incredibly competitive applicant pool.

  It’s not enough these days to have stellar grades and test scores. You have the sense you need leadership roles and volunteer hours and academic accolades, and maybe even the ability to save a kitten that’s stuck in the tree while you’re playing violin.

  00:01:54
  Matthew Jaskol: The race to accumulate these shiny accomplishments has become almost overwhelming, and the pressure to out achieve has never felt more real.

  Unfortunately, this pressure has also given rise to less ethical service providers who capitalize on the anxiety of students and parents. They promise to help students stand out with things like academic publications or conference presentations, sound impressive. Right?

  Well, usually these journals and conferences are about as rigorous as a middle school talent show.

  Families are drawn in by the desire for students to appear extraordinary, and the pursuit of learning becomes more about checking boxes than developing passions. The panel discussing this today offers the perspective of academic mentors.

  One of the Premier Institutes for profoundly gifted students and the admissions office of one of the most prestigious science and technology universities in the world. And I’ll start out with a question to get us started but I’m looking forward to getting your questions that you’d like to bring to the panel and the panelists, so please do add them to the chat.

  I am going to very briefly also add a link to the chat from an interesting article. It’s been written on this topic.

  00:03:19
  Matthew Jaskol: I hope you will take a look at that after the after the panel is done, or after the summit today. And it’s a really interesting perspective on what’s going on. So I’m gonna start out with Professor Dresden. You’ve mentored high school students in mathematics research through the Pioneer Research Institute for almost if about 10 years, I believe, or pretty close.

  Yeah, 11 or 12 and those experiences are about 3 to 7 months. But you also have worked with a number of those students for years afterwards, when they went to college, and you have published work in rigorous journals with them. And so I’m wondering if you can offer your perspective of the realism of a high school student producing quality publishable work.

  You know, in the traditional sense, in a summer or a semester as compared to the students you’ve worked with for a substantially longer time to produce that kind of work.

  00:04:20
  Professor Dresden: Sure. Yeah. If I would say almost impossible to produce a research quality project or paper in just 4 or 5 months. I’ve been doing work with pioneer for over a decade. I’ve been doing mathematics work for over 30 years. I have dozens of publications, textbooks, presentations. And I’m saying this not to brag, but to say that really do know a lot about how it works to get published. And the pioneer students that I have worked with and actually got them published. I’ve never done that, never been able to do that during the actual class itself. It’s always taken, sometimes up to a year, a year and a half afterwards. Students in my classes. 

  We get some really good ideas, and we do a little bit of footwork, and we make a little bit of exploration, and then sometimes, after the class is over were able to really pursue it. But, gosh! It takes a long time, I think the longest was 2 years from the time of the pioneer project to when it actually you know we wrote it. We sent it to the journal. The editor sent it back because they wanted some changes, and then we found out that there was some 19 thirties article that we had to refer to, and just on and on again. It took 2 years before we finally saw that article in print.

  So anybody that promises you that they’re going to get you published in just 10 weeks. It’s not going to happen.

  00:05:52
  Matthew Jaskol: Great.

  Again. I’ll mention to the audience, please do put some questions in the chat, because I’m not seeing any there yet. But Professor Dresden. I really appreciate that very direct point of view. And, Megan, I’m gonna turn to you now.

  At the Davidson Institute. You work with profoundly gifted young students varying ages. But one thing you have commented to me about to me before. When we were preparing, is that regardless of their age, the they’re already high achievers, and their parents are supporting them to be such. So how do you manage their expectations for academic awards, publications, and other accolades.

  00:06:33
  Megan Cannella: Right? I think that’s a great question. And I think it builds on everything that Professor Dresden said because publication is a slow process. Before I got to working at the Davidson Institute. I was teaching like college composition things like that publishing myself. It’s a slow process. Learning is a slow process. If it’s coming too easily. You’re probably not getting what you really want out of it and that is really saying something, because we do work with gifted and twice exceptional students so gifted in another diagnosis so they may understand the information quickly. 

  Nobody is disputing that but the process of really learning it and engaging it and going through the process of research and publication is a time consuming process. And so we try to break that down for the families we work with to say that if you’re looking for a mentor, if you’re looking to do research, know that it will not be perfect the 1st time, as Professor Justin, said, an editor will send things back. You will have to engage in a collaborative situation. It’s not just going to be like, well, I wrote a paper here you go. There is editing. There is input from other people, which is sometimes not how it’s presented broadly. 

  Sometimes we think, like research is an independent pursuit and that you’re completely on your own. Out in the wild doing your research. But that’s not how learning works. And that’s certainly not how publication works. So we try to find out what the student is passionate about and help them pave a way to get to publication, or whatever their goal is, and try and break it down, and see where intervention points might be where they can engage in the topic in a different way, build other skills. They might need some executive functioning skills, things like that. All the things that go into writing that maybe don’t come to mind at first. So that’s kind of how we try to temper it like that is a great goal. Go for that goal, but know that the path might be longer than anticipated. So yeah.

  00:09:03
  Matthew Jaskol: Right? Yeah.

  And Melissa, I expect you probably have some thoughts about what you’re already hearing, but I’ll also kind of frame a question toward you, and then you can kind of step back toward the other things. You’ve been hearing people saying, so I’m sure you see an inordinate number of applications, with claims of research, publications, and other outstanding accomplishments. 

  Not everyone may know that Caltech’s faculty is involved in application reviews. So you have some tools that other schools might not employ. But you know, still, it’s got to be quite hard to know, even in those cases, if the work is the students own. So from the Caltech or from the general college, admissions perspective as well. What advice would you offer students and parents? Regarding how claims of publication are actually interpreted, because, you know, it’s kind of a black box they kind of. They don’t know what really stands out. And so holistically contextual for each student. And so they’re kind of watching what other people are doing and telling them.

  00:10:10
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: Yeah, my advice would be to really investigate and interrogate, why it is that you are pursuing research. In the 1st place. You know. Just to speak to Caltech specifically, the majority of our admitted students each year have never done research. It is not an expectation.

  What we look for is a passion for research or passion for science in general, and the ways in which students convey that can exhibit a lot of other elements. That research is just one way of capturing right? Creativity, you know, to Megan’s point she’s like, if it’s taking, if it’s such a short amount of time. One thing that came to mind for me as you were talking, Megan was like, did they fail enough like? Was there enough trial and error? And what were, they tested right, not only their what their project was, but like that they themselves, in their spirit, for wanting to pursue research in the first place, and pursue science in the first place.

  00:11:07
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: We just I you know, even earlier in the college booth, someone asked if research was an integral part of the application. And it’s absolutely not. Research can do a lot of things to help prepare a student into gaining exposure to the scientific process. And all of those things, but it’s not at all an expectation. And there are so many other valid ways of affirming your love for STEM and showcasing that in an application that I would just, I would encourage folks to proceed with caution right in thinking that research is this fast track ticket to just my application is automatically elevated, and faculty are automatically going to be impressed with it. Because to your point, right? We have faculty who read, and that’s just not the way it works. Right? They’re interested in the why and the how and the struggle, and all of those little elements that lead up to a piece of paper, or, you know, not just one piece, but multiple pages than just that one line of achievement in and of itself.

  00:12:09
  Matthew Jaskol: Great. There’s a really quick follow up question, and this is almost a little bit of an opportunity to hear it directly from you, Joshing Su asks, How much do colleges value a published research paper is an unpublished research also valued. So Melissa, I think that’s just a perfect direct question for you.

  00:12:33
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: Yeah, a college.

  How much does a college value a published research paper? So again, to Matthew’s point earlier, especially at a place where we have such few spots. I’ll speak for Caltech. Specifically. The whole comprehensive student needs to really be there right and present. It’s not just going to be the research. And it’s not just going to be the name of the publication on which it was published that’s gonna matter. We value all of the other pieces that we are asking about in our supplemental as to like, why did you choose to do? Why did it ignite your love for STEM. In the 1st place, to do this that needs to be just as compelling as whatever outcome or thing that you found in your research project when it comes to unpublished research.

  Again, we understand that there’s going to be context to each student, some students, their proximity to research or to getting things published, etc., can be, can vary. We are going to value again the way in which a student is expressing that love for STEM they can tell us, too, that a student has, you know. Maybe they found some pitfalls in publishing their research.

  But again, we don’t. It’s not like well, a published research is automatically has 10 points more than an unpublished piece of research. Again, we’re looking at the research itself at the way that you are inquiring right, what kind of inquisitive nature are you? All of those things are things that faculty are very curious about? Because ultimately right, this is inviting. This is an opportunity for a student to be invited into that process for a faculty. And they need to exhibit a lot more than just again, just an input output. Here is a publication for you to know. Be happy that I did because we might not be happy, that you did, and we might have wished that you had conveyed more about this other aspect of your STEM profile as well. So you know. Just consider the balance, and don’t just put all of your eggs into this research basket.

  00:14:31
  Matthew Jaskol: Okay.

  I’m sorry. I don’t know. I’m gonna call Greg because I saw him first but go ahead.

  00:14:38
  Professor Dresden: Thanks, thanks just to follow up, just to follow up on that excellent comment from Melissa. I’ve also served on the Admissions committee at my college. One of the most compelling applications that I ever saw was a student who wrote about how the more that she learned about mathematics, the less smart that she felt because every new, every new article or new video that she watched or read.

  She realized how much more there was out there, and she talked about it. Was it was. It was a wonderful essay. She talked about having to kind of overcome that feeling of almost despair, but she was able to turn around and say, You know, just there’s so much out there that I don’t know, and I can’t wait to get to college and learn about it. And then she listed like the 15 things that she wanted to do in college. And that was really that was really wonderful. It’s like she’s engaging with the material and she’s acknowledging that, you know, I’m not an expert. I’m going to college in order to do the research. And this touches on something I think, Melissa had said earlier, which is, you don’t need research to go to college. You go to college to do the research.

  00:15:45
  Matthew Jaskol: Right, absolutely. And, Megan, you had another comment you wanted to add.

  00:15:48
  Megan Cannella: Yeah, I just wanted to add on that, like, I’m one of the first round readers for our big scholarship, the fellow scholarship which requires a tremendous amount of research. And when we’re reading through those projects similar to what Melissa and Professor Justin have said, you can tell the difference between the students who have struggled. And so maybe their finished product isn’t publication. Maybe they haven’t been published. But you what they’ve presented to us and their submission tracks. Then oh, the more I learn, the more I need to learn and like here are the problems. And there’s a part of the application that says, like.

  What is the time that you’ve spent on this? What are the challenges that you encountered and the people who are like. Well. I started this in June, and I wrapped it up in August, and I was just like, How do I balance this with you know, football practice, or whatever they’re doing.

  Those tend to be less developed projects, anyway. Right? Because they’re not like Melissa said earlier. Have you failed enough? And so some of the projects that are winning may not be published, but all of the work is there. They’re laying that foundation. So eventually they can use this scholarship money to go to college to continue this project, to publish, or whatever the final project is. So I think that, like time and care, and commitment is a big part of it. More than just have I submitted it by some arbitrary deadline? We’d rather, I think, from the little that we’ve interacted today. I think, like all 3 of us would say that like we would rather you take the time and really work it out and struggle with it and have that like creative learning experience, than to just turn something out.

  00:17:52
  Matthew Jaskol: Great. So have a fantastic alternative side question from Vaishnavi, who I’m going to let anyone who wants to jump in answer or multiple people. But how can students align their research project with long term goals that reflect authentic curiosity rather than the pursuit of recognition? 

  That’s a great challenging question. But again, how can students align their research projects with long term goals that reflect authentic curiosity rather than the pursuit of recognition? Megan, you look like you have something.

  00:18:29
  Megan Cannella: Yeah, I had one just popped right in. I would say a flexibility right? And knowing that what your long term goal is right now in this moment is probably going to change by the end of you doing this research.

  In my time, before Davidson as a teacher. My own life, the life of many people I know, and the students I work with. What you start off going to undergrad for may not be what you end up doing may not even be your final major might not be in 20 years you may be doing something else. So if your research is focused on long term goals. And there’s a genuine curiosity. I would say that there should also be a genuine flexibility.

  As you’re going through that process. Maybe today. You’re like, I have this research idea. My plan is to go to this school and do these things grade but don’t prioritize that goal more than like the organic research process. Let yourself change along the way, and it’ll you’ll end up where you’re supposed to be, and maybe that’s like not the answer you were hoping.

  00:19:44
  Matthew Jaskol: Right well, but inbound. It sounds like. 

  I was gonna say, it sounds like that’s what Melissa and Professor Dresden have also kind of mentioned in the sense that, like. I think, and so I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Melissa, so I’m going to ask you to speak up right after I’m done saying this. But I think what I’m hearing you say is that the recognition piece is not going to trump the work that’s done right. And so, if it’s a longer term project, and it’s not done by college. You know. There are ways to and maybe you can talk about this. There are ways to talk about the work that you are doing or that is in progress. But research isn’t timed for college admissions right? And you you’re looking for the work that’s being done, or that student’s interest in it, versus like, you know, did I get the recognition in time.

  00:20:34
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: Yes, yeah, that’s something that we’ll see sometimes. Right? A student will say I, we’re still wrapping it up, and it’s in publication, as though, again trying to couch that it’ll be published. So therefore it’s gonna be really spectacular. And that’s just not the way that we think about it right again. A student is gonna be able to describe the level. You know how much time commitment they had, how they came to find and secure that that opportunity for research, etc. etc..

  But again, there’s going to be there. There’s got to be more than just that. Those factoids. Right? We’re looking for glimmers of again, like what Megan was talking about. Genuine, authentic inquiry, a sense of flexibility, I think, was a really great way of framing it as well. A student might continue on that path of whatever they think they’re interested in, because it’s rigid, and because they’re not moving anywhere else, but then come to a place with immense opportunity, resource all these different types of interdisciplinary pathways, and if that continues to affirm and kind of channel that same love. Then that’s wonderful. But I think that to Megan’s point there are so many other skill sets and things that will continue to infuse themselves naturally into that path. That will help you right, either maybe flex to another direction, or continue again, to kind of supplement and augment that that first initial, long term goal.

  00:22:07
  Matthew Jaskol: Yeah, I have a Ruby Chen also came up with a very interesting question. It’s a little bit different than the direction we’ve been taking. But I love this because what Ruby asks, and Professor Dresden, maybe I would say this would be best for you to take a first crack at is, what are the benefits of publishing other than trying to make my college application look better.

  00:22:27
  Professor Dresden: Sure that that is a great question. In some sense it’s not really a fair question, because oh, and because the publishing, I’ve never had it happen before. One of my students actually ended up already in the college. It just takes a year, a year and a half or 2 by the time I actually get a paper in print, that student has already applied been accepted and shown up in the fall, and it’s now halfway through their freshman year. But that, said the work involved in going towards a publication, the editing the back and forth the checking other sources. That’s valuable in and of itself. And that’s exactly what? What Melissa and Megan have been talking about well,  as well. And sometimes you realize that the project you’ve been working on has already been done by somebody in Australia 20 years ago.

  And that’s okay, because you’re not always trying to get published. You’re trying to get. You’re trying to get the knowledge about the field you’re trying to explore what’s out there and what’s known and what’s not known. So I know that this is a common theme over the last 20 min. But it really is the process. It really is the journey and not the destination. And it’s those skills that you pick up in trying to craft an essay craft, a craft, an article work with the editors. That, I think, is what really pays off.

  00:23:53
  Matthew Jaskol: Hmm! Any other comments on that? Yeah, go ahead.

  00:23:56
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: Yeah, I was gonna say, it might be a benefit to you in that. And this is speaking to, because at our school, right. We have re people who are intent on research. We also have folks that are intent on industry, and maybe a student has made it to the finish line and has a published piece of research, and then they walk away feeling do that again. I think I might go into this other pathway right? My other thought about what the benefit of this would be is the same benefit that would stand without having it be publication.

  But just a general, a showcase of dedication, right of following through on something that is something that college admissions people are always kind of intent on, especially when we’re thinking about, you know, securing nice rigorous opportunities to continue to build on that those passions.

  So I think that those are just again just more big picture things that that we walk away with. When we see that someone has dedicated X amount of time to one craft, or one team, or one club, or anything like that. I think that that shows again a sense of dedication and commitment and not like a flightiness where you’re just kind of lily padding all over the place, because you don’t really know what it is that you’re doing.

  00:25:10
  Megan Cannella: And if I can just add in really quickly, I think there is also like publication, one single paper is not going to like, light your life on fire. You’re going to publish it, and you’re going to feel great. And then you’re going to be like, oh, is. Is everybody not in the streets talking about my paper? What do you mean you’re contributing to a bigger conversation? Right? And when you’re writing it, it’s your whole world. And so you’re confused. 

  Why, people in the streets are not raving about it. But, you’re contributing to this bigger conversation. And so that dedication, and that time spent and failure, experience, and all of that is part of the growth. Because research is not so glamorous in any field. Right? And you’re doing it because you think you can change the conversation you can add to the conversation. So something I talked about earlier is we talked so much about focus.

  And there are lots of students who are specialists. And there are lots of students that I work with who we use the term multi potential light. They’re interested in a lot of different topics.

  And if that is you and you’re interested in research, that is really powerful, too, because you’re able to have a more interdisciplinary view on things, and that changes your participation in the conversation. So I would just say that, like publication, may not be like the one silver bullet like be all end all like it’s you’re entering in a conversation, and you’re making a contribution, and that takes time, and that takes effort and a lot of energy, so.

  00:26:57
  Matthew Jaskol: Yeah. And if I might add, you know, when one of the ways pioneer thinks about this, in fact, Professor Dresden will recall probably, that we, recent a couple of years ago, went out and said, we don’t want faculty to write recommendation letters for students, even when requested because we are thinking. You know, students are evaluated at the end. Their research could fail. Most research fails right? And so the evaluation of that is really an evaluation of the way the students done the work. And the students, you know, learning essentially, and their interaction. And so you know. 

  That’s how we kind of avoid this question of what do you get at the end? You know you everyone gets an evaluation, and it’s whatever it, you know, is the level of the work. And the student, you know the work you did and the student that you are and we think that’s a healthier approach. So we have a lot of time. We try to talk to admissions officers about, you know, saying like, Please be aware this is not a recommendation letter. We don’t even we don’t do that.

  00:28:05
  Matthew Jaskol: I think there’s a nice follow up question here from I’m going to say the name wrong. So please excuse me. But, Bezowit, he asks, would it be a red flag to our admissions process if the research that we conducted is published by a 3rd party, especially if the research has only been done in the course of 3 or 4 months. Given that Professor Dresden at least talked about from a mathematics perspective and the kinds of journals he’s working with. It’s usually one to 2 years. I thought that was an interesting follow up question.

  00:28:39
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: Yeah, I can. I can take. I can talk about this, start things off. So there, there are many opportunities, right? That might be weeks long. Maybe there’s an 8 week science program where you’re, you know, engaging in some sort of project or experiment.

  So I wouldn’t say that there’s that it’s we’re looking for flags, and it’s like this big, you know, alarm bells are going off, or anything like that, because again, as we’ve mentioned numerous times right? It’s not a silver bullet. It’s not the only egg that should be in your basket. Research, having one nice piece of research is not going to get you into Caltech alone. That’s just not the way it works. It’s again a comprehensive understanding of the student who they are and what they bring.

  And if it’s 1 piece of research that’s just not going to be enough, right? So we’re looking for other things to help us. Again. See green flags in a student. So I wouldn’t say, necessarily, this is a red flag, and this is automatically a suspect applicant or anything like that. At the same time right?

  00:29:40
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: We do our due diligence. And you know, Matthew’s link, that he that he posted about the integrity of programs and the all of these things. Are becoming something that we are more and more intent on informing ourselves about before we begin reading. But that’s not to say right automatically, that’s a red flag or anything. But we’re going to be looking for other things. Other signals once again that that pro, that research opportunity, we would be requiring a letter from that person. So sometimes we’ll see. Okay. Their proximity to the project wasn’t as close as maybe we originally thought it was. So. There are a lot of different moving parts to that question. But I won’t say it’s automatically a red flag. But we’re looking at a lot of different factors when someone is saying that they have partaken in in research.

  00:30:31
  Matthew Jaskol: I’m gonna, I know we have probably time. Just for one more question. I’m gonna choose this one because I think it’s an interesting point that we care a lot about philosophically. So Rashid asks on my application, should I mention how I decided to do a research paper like if I did a course on AI, and then I then I, you know, published a research paper on it, or something like that. So I’m passionate about this point, because we feel that, like the journey of figuring out your question is half the process. But I wondered if someone wanted to comment on it.

  00:31:07
  Professor Dresden: Yeah, I would say that I would be very interested in in what is it that drove a student to a particular topic? Because there are. There are some topics that I find frankly, very boring. And so I would like to know why a student choose, chose to work in, say, partial, differential equations. It’s like there must be something there that you find really interesting and just that that conversation alone, I think, would be far more interesting to me if I’m thinking about, you know working in the Admissions office than say, finding that they had maybe increased an epsilon bound by say, you know, point 0 3 or something, you know I would much rather them talk about how they were really intrigued by wave equations and thinking about how that you know how that’s going to you know how that’s going to play forward. So yeah, for me, it’s the description more, I think, than the results.

  00:32:01
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: I would echo the same.  Our supplemental essays are literally asking about, not your STEM achievements, but your STEM passion. That is literally how we are trying to get to the heart of your stem. Relationship is your passion for it, and we are very. That is what we ask on our application is.

  Tell us two STEM activities that you took part in and tell us why that ignited your passion for STEM. We’re very curious about that, because again, it’s not just a I did it because I thought it’d get me in. That’s not compelling. That’s not effective. That will not serve you at Caltech. We’re looking at the why, what makes you think? What was that? And to Greg’s point? Right? Professor Dresden’s point?

  It might be a personal thing. And then we learn that. This person was captivated by this diagnosis because of a family member, or maybe they were just really angry at a podcast there’s just so many different ways to communicate how you find your way to your passion for stem. So absolutely that is a very, very I would definitely be curious to hear about your why, not just the what.

  00:33:10
  Matthew Jaskol: Well, I unfortunately, we do need to wrap this panel up. But I want to say Thank you so much to everybody who’s been here. Because I think that you, you know, we really think about this. This is really about the health of education and the health of my you know me as a student trying to think about. You know how I, you know, get the most out of it, and if it’s really from the perspective of you know. How? How do you know? How? How do I pursue what I’m authentically interested in? It’s going to lead to a healthier education, a healthier life, more success professionally, whether that’s out of the academic world. And so Professor Dresden, Megan, and Melissa, we really appreciate your time and your thoughts here it’s been meant, means a lot. 

  I’m going to give a quick promo for our next panel which dovetails very closely on this because it’s a panel about academic risk taking. And this sense that everybody has to look perfect. And so then how do you pursue challenging things if you’re if you feel like you can’t, you know?

  You know you have to. You have to look perfect and not make mistakes and not fall down anywhere right or get knocked down. And so we have Mike Steidel, who just retired as after 35 years of Dean of Admissions at Carnegie Mellon and some students bringing that student voice to the to the panel. So, I’m excited for you to join that, and thank you everybody very much.

  00:34:50
  Melissa Rodriguez | Caltech: Thank you.

  00:34:50
  Megan Cannella: Thank you.