sakky

What exactly do I have backwards?

Well, actually, the American Industrial Revolution is generally credited to have really boomed started after the Civil War, as part of the world's "second Industrial Revolution" (the first happening in the UK about 75 years earlier). This second revolution occurred during the period of Reconstruction to WW1. When was MIT founded? 1861 - the year the Civil War began. Hence, it seems to me that your chronology should be the other way around. MIT was not founded as a response to the US involvement in the Industrial Revolution. Rather, it was actually founded slightly before that, and arguably contributed to the development of that revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ial_Revolution

Actually, this story is actually more complicated than that. There were actually several attempts to merge Harvard and MIT. While It is true that the MIT alumni voted against it, that didn't really stop the contemporary efforts and certainly wouldn't have stopped later efforts by the administrations of both schools. What really put the kibosh on these efforts was a court ruling barring such a merger.

The proposed merger nearly became a reality. A majority of trustees from both institutions approved the scheme, but it was financially contingent upon MIT’s ability to sell its property in Boston’s Back Bay to raise funds for rebuilding on Harvard’s land at Soldiers Field. In September 1905 the intended merger failed because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that MIT could not sell its Back Bay lands without violating the terms under which it had originally acquired them.

http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/ex...mit/index.html

Well, actually, what I am making a twofold point.

#1) Engineering was not a highly respected industry in the US until about WW2 (when technological development was seen to be key to the war effort). Prior to that time, "respectable" American society looked down on engineering, as they basically saw it as glorified handiwork. Heck, even to this day, engineering is still seen as something not quite on par, either financially or socially with, say, law or medicine or finance.

#2) Before WW2, MIT was nowhere near the major research center that it is today for the simple reason that no US university was. Let's face it. The US as a whole did not become a significant science/technology world power until WW2 - prior to that, the vast majority of Nobel Prizes were won by Europeans, and the vast majority of scientific and technical advances were invented by Europeans. I think I read somewhere that before WW2, as far as the number of science Nobels (hence, not counting Peace or Literature Prizes), the US couldn't match up to even the Netherlands. It was WW2 where US universities, MIT being among the forefront, really stepped onto the world stage. Before that time, MIT and all other US universities (including Harvard) were mere minnows compared to the great European universities such as Oxbridge, and (especially) the constellation of powerful German universities. In fact, the whole model of what a 'research university' is, is based on German universities.

WW2 basically destroyed Europe's scientific preeminence, and actually contributed to the rise of the US, not only because of the impetus the US government placed on research to help with the war effort, but because many of the top European scientists, including especially Jewish scientists, fled to the US. Europe's loss was the US's gain. If totalitarianism and the war had never happened, I strongly suspect that MIT (and all other US universities) would still be research minnows relative to the Euro-giants, and that the best American students would prefer to study in European schools (which is the mirror image of today, when many of the best European students prefer to study in the US).

gnrfan

I read through the posts, and I think USAMO qualifiers should get into MIT. Maybe not CalTech, because CalTech only takes 200. But MIT's class of 1000 should have room for the roughly 100 USAMO qualifiers that graduate each year. (About 160 qualify each year, but I'm assuming that at least some of them are underclassmen.) If the person gets a GPA with only a couple of "B's" and the rest "A'"s, then admission should be automatic.

Those that disagree with me probably have no idea what USAMO is or what it means.

I've actually heard that usamo is a huge boost at caltech and comes close to guaranteeing admission. Not sure if this is true though. One that's for sure is that the usamo qualifiers i know are math geniuses, as in acing calc bc in 8th or 9th grade. Qualifying for usamo shows you can really think logically and outside the box, better than almost anyone. Isn't this invaluable to engineers?

simfish

USAMO vs. RSI:
Send AMC score? And how...?
GracieLegend speaks of the flaws of USAMO in anecdotal terms. Again, MANY who don't get into USAMO are still very smart, even smarter than the USAMO qualifiers, because again, (a) not everyone invests the same amount of effort/care into preparing for the USAMO, and (b) people don't score consistently on the AMC/AIME year after year.

Big Brother 1984

"I've actually heard that usamo is a huge boost at caltech and comes close to guaranteeing admission. Not sure if this is true though. One that's for sure is that the usamo qualifiers i know are math geniuses, as in acing calc bc in 8th or 9th grade. Qualifying for usamo shows you can really think logically and outside the box, better than almost anyone. Isn't this invaluable to engineers?"

Not true. Caltech does reject USAMO qualifiers. Like simfish said, a lot of these math contests have to do with growing up in a culture that emphasizes mathematical pursuits. In a weird way, qualifying for the USAMO is a lot like doing well on the SAT.

I know this Chinese kid who was both a USAMO and US Physics Semis qualifier, but was rejected from both Caltech and MIT. His SAT score was like a 2000, and it was clear that he was only good at contest math because of the intensive training he received in China.

I don't know if you're speaking of "geniuses" in absolute terms, but I can definitely tell you that to people who are a part of some problem solving culture, USAMO qualifiers are a dime a dozen. Also, anyone who's practised extensively for the AMC series contests will know that hard work is oftentimes, sufficient enough for success in USAMO qualification. I don't know what you mean by this "thinking logically and outside the box" stuff, but I really don't think USAMO qualification is indicative of "genius" at all. A good year of solid prep, often does the trick.

kryptonsa36

The most successful students from my school haven't been USAMO qualifiers. Not to say the USAMO qualifiers here arn't good students, but last year's USAMO qualifier (now at CMU), and this year's 2 new USAMO qualifiers are frankly very good at math but don't have much to their names in other respects. In the case of the latter 2 USAMOers still at my high school, they are like the kid from Big Brother's story: recently-immigrated Chinese students who do well because of their upbringing in China, but who will probably not demonstrate very high proficiency with CR or W on the SATs.

Nato

Just wanted to say a few things on this topic:

MIT has been shifting its admissions process for serveral reasons.

MIT used to be incredibly focused on high ranking, SAT scores, etc and didn't seem so "subjective." After a while, MIT noticed that its pool of students were changing. Because MIT was admitting high SAT scores and high gpa students, their pool wasn't nessecarily the "best."
In fact, their pools of students were found to be less innovative, and less creative than it used to be. Why? These students spent too much time worrying about GPA and high SAT scores that they became rigid learners who merely regurgitated information rather than being creative and innovative.
So, MIT changed its admissions process. They valued interesting individuals who showed creativity and innovation. So far, its been working. The pools of students at MIT today show incredible creativity and innovation, a consequence of diversity. MIT realized that the people with the highest scores and GPA weren't the best indicators of future success.

collegealum314

^
You're a high school senior. How could you possibly know this? Previous MIT classes weren't creative according to who?

Excelling in class does not indicate a lack of creativity...And having a quirky, "interesting" personality doesn't indicate any abundance of creativity.

MIT never cared about the numbers just for numbers-sake. They looked for the student with the A+s because that student is the one that has such passion that they try to go above and beyond what is presented in class. But the thing is, if this person is doing this, then they are pretty likely to ace all of them and end up as valedictorian or salutatorian. Unless there is some serious family crisis, I wonder why someone would get less than an "A" in a high school math or science class.

And one more thing--I doubt anyone in the history of MIT ever prepped more than 5 minutes for the Math part of the SAT.

pebbles

"I doubt anyone in the history of MIT ever prepped more than 5 minutes for the Math part of the SAT."

what

milki

I somehow doubt the validity of that statement. Not everyone at MIT is super laid back and naturally intelligent. I'm sure many got into because of their Work Ethic, Interest etc.

pebbles

at least cockiness never got anyone too far in life.

collegealum314

"I doubt anyone in the history of MIT ever prepped more than 5 minutes for the Math part of the SAT."

what
----------------------------------------------------

The math part is so easy that MIT-caliber students can just show up and get 800, assuming they don't make a stupid mistake or something. The person made the point that people in past MIT classes got high SAT scores because they spent so much time studying for the SAT. I just think that is absurd. Even if you did prep somewhat for the math part just to be safe, it's completely a waste of time. I mean, the questions are like "which quantity is bigger,
1/2 or 1/3?". "x^3 or x^2?" Using the Pythagorean theorem. It's a joke.

collegeguy2k7

I studied for the math part haha. I got an 800 on the IIc test without studying while I would keep tripping up on ye old arithmetic. l0llll, those were the days

orbis_somnio

Quite an assumption and hardly true. You're an alum, how would you know what high school students have to go through these days? There's tremendous pressure from everything. Everyone will spend more than 5 minutes looking at the math part, no matter how smart they are. Students don't go in without knowing how the test is formatted and how its questions are formulated. And that takes more than 5 min.

Having a quirky personality does indicate a tendency to think differently.

Yet this is not true either. Having A+s does not indicate passion. I got a few A+s in high school and I wasn't really into the subjects. It was just a matter of doing really well. A grade does not indicate anything at all except for ability in the class. A B student could be more passionate than an A student.

The proposal for automatic admission with high GPA and USAMO qualification is ridiculous. What if this person had nothing interesting to say in the essays and came off as someone who did nothing but study because the person was so bent on getting high scores? It shows a lack of personality. Opportunities presented in college might go to waste because this person will perhaps still be bent on just getting a high GPA in college.

Someone already said it, numbers aren't the best indicators of future success. That's why MIT changed its admissions process. They now look for the context in which these numbers came from.

stevedad

"You're an alum, how would you know what high school students have to go through these days? There's tremendous pressure from everything. Everyone will spend more than 5 minutes looking at the math part, no matter how smart they are."

"Everyone"?? Ummm, wrong. S, who is currently trying to decide between MIT and another school, never gave any consideration to studying for any of the standardized tests he took in HS (except for AIME soph. year and USAMO right now). Thought it was a waste of time and money that he could spend doing fun things.

orbis_somnio

So you're saying he didn't even spend a single minute looking at the SAT? Just looking at a few questions? He didn't know how the test and its questions were structured when he came in to take it?

Not many people (by people, I mean students admitted to schools of MIT caliber, including itself) take the SAT with no expectations for it.

I know there are always exception and your son may be a case. But almost everyone will spend more than 5 min.