So 2 weeks ago, I submitted an editorial to
The Towers regarding the President's IQP Awards. The main focus was on how the winner is seemingly always from Africa. Since
The Towers website has not updated since January 22, I am posting it here to share. This editorial originally appeared on the January 29, 2013 Issue (Volume 103, Issue 13).
The Problems of the President’s IQP Award
Is there a formula for success?
Each January a group of outstanding IQP projects is selected
as finalists for the President’s IQP Award and the groups are welcomed back to
present to a panel of esteemed judges. These judges then determine which of the
projects was “outstanding in focusing on the relationships among science,
technology and the needs of society” and selects a winner (President’s IQP
Awards, n.d.). The finalists are
selected from the pool of applicants, 44 this year, and are the projects that
are “superior in conception, execution, and presentation” are selected
(President’s IQP Awards, n.d.). There are no pre-determined categories for the
awards, so all any applicant has to go on is whether or not they completed a
good IQP (President’s IQP Awards, n.d.).
This
award recognizes the best out of a year’s worth of IQPs, and to win it is a
wonderful achievement. To work on the real-world, socially informed IQP,
especially one overseas in a completely different culture, is an extraordinary
privilege granted to WPI students. The skills learned are invaluable in an
increasingly international world and experiences gained while working on the
project can be life-changing. Every IQP is distinctive and they all address
important social issues through interdisciplinary team-based problem solving
and any project, even if completed on campus, can be submitted for
consideration in the President’s IQP Award.
Yet there is a general feeling
among students that an IQP must be completed overseas and directly benefit some
disadvantaged group in order to win the award – mainly, if the project is not
done in Africa working with the poor in informal settlements then it cannot win
the President’s IQP Award. This feeling is not unjustified, as is evidenced by
this year’s award finalists and past winners.
The
finalists for the 2012 award were projects completed in Namibia (two), Cape
Town, Puerto Rico, and Bangkok, with honorable mentions from Melbourne
(shocking!) and Cape Town. Winners in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2007, and 2004 were
projects completed in Namibia; 2008 in Cape Town; the 2006 award was shared by
a group from Namibia and one from WPI; the 2005 award was split between groups
from Thailand and Puerto Rico; the 2003 winner was completed in Denmark
(President’ IQP Awards, n.d.). Records previous to 2003 appear unavailable.
So, out
of nine awards awarded to eleven projects: seven were completed in Africa, 73%
were completed in under-developed areas, and only 18% were completed in western
nations (Puerto Rico does not definitively fit into either category). If
second- and third-place winners are included there are 20 awards presented to
38 projects, with only 58% completed in under-developed areas.
Table 1: President's IQP Award winner since 2003 (President's
IQP Awards, n.d.).
Year
|
First
Place
|
Second
Place
|
Third
Place
|
2011
|
Namibia
|
-
|
-
|
2010
|
Namibia
|
Denmark, South Africa, Thailand, WPI
|
-
|
2009
|
Namibia
|
Thailand, Nantucket, South Africa, WPI
|
-
|
2008
|
South Africa
|
Hong Kong, Denmark, London, Namibia
|
-
|
2007
|
Namibia
|
Boston, Namibia
|
Boston, Thailand
|
2006
|
Namibia, WPI
|
-
|
-
|
2005
|
Thailand, Puerto Rico
|
Namibia, WPI
|
Venice
|
2004
|
Namibia
|
Namibia, Thailand
|
Puerto Rico, Thailand
|
2003
|
Denmark
|
Thailand
|
Boston, Costa Rica, Namibia
|
These numbers show that there is
roughly equal chance for a project to be named a finalist whether or not it is it
is focused on an under-developed area. However, there appears to be a bias
towards projects completed in under-developed areas when only first-place
winners are considered. So to win the President’s IQP Award, the best chance is
to go to Africa and complete a hands-on project that directly benefits
disadvantaged individuals.
If acknowledged
as an actual issue, then a desirable course of action would be to change how
this award works. Each IQP is registered to a certain division from this list
(Available IQPs, 2007):
- Technology and Environment
- Energy and Resources
- Health Care and Technology
- Urban and Environmental Planning
- Science and Technology: Policy and
Management
- Social Studies of Science and Technology
- Safety Analysis and Liability
- Humanistic Studies of Technology
- Economic Growth, Stability, and Development
- Social and Human Services
- Education in a Technological Society
- Law and Technology
- Historic and Artistic Preservation
Technology
While the distinction of the award
would be greatly reduced if a semi-finalist were required from each category,
these 13 divisions could be grouped into thematic clusters and one project from
each group would then be selected from all the submissions registered to those
categories as a finalist by a committee, as is currently done. These finalist
projects would then be presented at an awards ceremony. A panel of judges would
then choose at least one first-place winner from the projects that were
presented. This type of system would provide high recognition of a project from
any division that is deemed outstanding while still showcasing the best of the
IQPs. The current method of awarding the first place winner would not change,
leaving the decision to a panel of judges to choose the most outstanding IQP of
the year.
Whether
or not any change is made, there should be a more specific, or more publicized,
criteria for the award. Currently the only readily accessible information
regarding award criteria is given in the opening paragraph of this article. The
judges presumably have some set of criteria they use to choose the award
winner. These criteria should be made known to the applicants and should give
equal opportunity to all projects that fulfill all of the IQP objectives and
outcomes to an outstanding level.
Many
students joke about this African project bias, but it is more apparent than
many may have thought. Without reform, the President’s IQP Award unfairly
favors those projects that work directly with under-privileged individuals to
produce a tangible result. A change to this award should be thought about as we
congratulate the Namibia team that received the 2012 President’s IQP Award.
References
