Stossel student contests: choose the medium that sharpens the argument

Editorial overview

Stossel in the Classroom runs three student contests under one umbrella: an essay competition, a short-video competition and an AI challenge. They share an interest in public questions and independent reasoning, but they do not reward the same work in different packaging. The editorial decision that matters most is choosing which track makes a student's thinking clearer rather than choosing the newest or most comfortable medium.

The essay track gives sustained argument room to breathe. The video track adds voice, pace, image and production choices. The AI challenge is more unusual: the submitted evidence includes a conversation with an approved system and a reflection on what the exchange revealed. In that track, clever prompting is not enough; the student must show judgment about the tool's answers and about their own reasoning.

The programme is worth watching because it does not present AI as a universal shortcut. Its rules draw different boundaries for different forms. That makes authorship part of the intellectual task. A strong entrant should be able to point to the decisions, research and revisions that belong to them, regardless of whether the finished artifact is prose, video or a documented dialogue.

Quick Facts

For current dates, eligibility and registration details, see the Stossel in the Classroom Student Contests competition page.

Review Evaluation

Rated Intermediate. Strong entries need a clear position, credible supporting material, original judgment, and disciplined communication in the chosen medium.

Three tracks, three kinds of evidence

Checked on 2026-09-19: the 2026–27 programme includes an essay contest, a video contest and an AI challenge. Essay entrants in grades 5–12 submit 500–1,000 words; video entrants from grade 5 through undergraduate level submit one to three minutes; the AI challenge is for grades 8–12 students aged at least 13 and requires a shareable approved-tool conversation plus a 500–750 word reflection.

An essay is the best choice when the student wants to establish a position, define terms, weigh evidence and build a sequence of reasoning. A video is useful when demonstration, visual contrast or spoken delivery carries part of the idea. The AI challenge suits a student who is curious about how a system responds, willing to test it and able to explain where the conversation was useful, shallow or misleading.

Do not draft one generic argument and convert it into three formats. Each form changes what counts as evidence. A video needs an image plan and an audio plan. An AI reflection needs a record of how questions evolved. An essay needs paragraph-level control and source integration. Choose one route early enough to learn its constraints.

The AI rules are part of the subject

Checked on 2026-09-19: AI-generated essays are prohibited in the essay contest. The video rules allow AI elements while requiring the student's own critical thinking, script and production to remain central. The AI challenge restricts entrants to approved ChatGPT or Gemini tools and asks for both the conversation link and the student's reflection. Students may not enter both the essay contest and the AI challenge in the same cycle.

For the AI track, preserve the conversation as it develops. Start with a question that can produce disagreement or uncertainty rather than a prompt asking for a finished school answer. Challenge claims, ask for evidence, change assumptions and notice contradictions. The reflection should not merely praise or condemn the tool. It should explain which prompt choices changed the result and which judgments still had to be made by the student.

For the essay and video tracks, keep a process record for a different reason: it protects authorship. Research notes, outlines, drafts, scripts and edit decisions show how the work became the student's own. Adults can discuss ideas and technical problems, but the reasoning and expressive choices should remain legible as student work.

What prior winners reveal

Checked on 2026-09-19: the organiser's official winners page publishes names and winning entries across its categories, including recent essay and video winners. The page is useful because entrants can compare how a written argument and a short audiovisual argument create authority differently without assuming that one topic or tone is a formula.

Read a few official winners with questions rather than admiration. Where does the entry establish its point quickly? What evidence is explained rather than merely mentioned? In a video, what work is done by the image that the narration does not repeat? In an essay, where does the writer anticipate a reasonable objection? Then close the examples and return to the entrant's own issue.

The contest's public-affairs tone may tempt students to imitate adult commentary. That usually produces borrowed certainty. A younger entrant can be more persuasive by choosing a question they understand, admitting a real tension and writing or speaking in a voice they can sustain under follow-up questions.

Timing and closing checks

Checked on 2026-09-19: the AI Challenge closes earlier, on 18 January 2027 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. The essay and video contests close on 12 March 2027 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time, with winners scheduled for 31 May. Essay finalists complete a remote interview during the final selection period.

Before submission, check the track-specific grade band, file or link format, title and contact details. Video collaborators should understand that only the named entrant receives the payment. Essay finalists should retain their research and drafts so they can discuss the work naturally in interview.

A preparation sequence

First choose a prompt and write a one-sentence position with one serious objection. Gather a small set of reliable sources and decide what the entrant can contribute beyond summary. For an essay, build the argument around claims and counterclaims. For a video, storyboard the relationship between narration and image before filming. For the AI challenge, plan a sequence of tests and reserve time to analyse the transcript.

Use feedback to identify where a viewer or reader stops understanding, not to replace the student's position. Revise for clarity and evidence, then conduct a closing authorship check: can the student explain why every major choice is present? If not, another pass of thinking is more valuable than surface polish.

Key Takeaways

Select the track that makes the student's thinking most visible. Treat format and AI rules as substantive constraints, preserve evidence of authorship and study official winners for craft rather than topics to copy. The decisive quality across all three contests is not production expense. It is a clear, supported judgment expressed in a form the student genuinely controls.

Sources checked

• https://stosselintheclassroom.org/student-contests/
• https://stosselintheclassroom.org/essay-contest/
• https://stosselintheclassroom.org/video-contest/
• https://stosselintheclassroom.org/ai-challenge/
• https://stosselintheclassroom.org/winners/