IQP Awards

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):

41. Technology and Environment
42. Energy and Resources
43. Health Care and Technology
44. Urban and Environmental Planning
45. Science and Technology: Policy and Management
46. Social Studies of Science and Technology
47. Safety Analysis and Liability
48. Humanistic Studies of Technology
49. Economic Growth, Stability, and Development
50. Social and Human Services
51. Education in a Technological Society
52. Law and Technology
53. 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

President’s IQP Awards. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from Worcester Polytechnic Institute website: http://www.wpi.edu/about/awards/iqp.html  

Available IQPs. (2007, August 22). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from Projects Program website: http://www.wpi.edu/academics/Projects/viewiqps.html