Not really, it suffers from the same issues that most STEM competitions do. The rewards go to the children of successful parents who gave their children important aspects of their own research or self-funded them to develop an existing idea.
The competition still has prestige, but most of the awardees didn't get where they are on their own abilities and interests.
While I agree that perhaps we could use some more diversity in science research competition, I think you underestimate the scale of work and dedication required - look at Sara Volz, the 2013 winner, who notably did much of her work in an improvised lab environment [1].
If you're interested, do take a look at the 2015 projects - Intel STS winners are by no means coddled or fed on "fake" science. Perhaps there is an undesirable concentration of talent in certain schools or regions, leading some to question the privilege enjoyed by the winners, but there is no doubt in my mind that the awardees have performed immensely well to deserve their honors. By the way, some of the best labs/resources are also offered through meritocratic selection - Harvard/MIT's RSI and Stanford's SIMR programs both offer excellent mentorship and cutting-edge resources to summer students through an application process. These students often end up winning these competitions too, with no parent involvement.
Not really, it suffers from the same issues that most STEM competitions do. The rewards go to the children of successful parents who gave their children important aspects of their own research or self-funded them to develop an existing idea.
The competition still has prestige, but most of the awardees didn't get where they are on their own abilities and interests.