<p>Now are these updates done by fax or email? I can’t find the answer to this question anywhere on harvard’s website, or this. One would think it’s in their elaborate FAQ list…</p>
<p><a href=“https://admweb.fas.harvard.edu/ha/Applicant/ApplicantFrame.html[/url]”>https://admweb.fas.harvard.edu/ha/Applicant/ApplicantFrame.html</a></p>
<p>Choose Additions to Application. You’ll receive a confirmation email in an hour or so.</p>
<p>@Greedisgood
</p>
<p>As someone who has gotten a perfect score on both tests (SAT I math, SAT II math, AMC 8, AMC 10, AMC 12, and the ACT math moreover), I can say that the SAT I math is really easy compared to the AMC. I would say getting an 800 on SAT I math is about equivalent (in the hypothetical case that a student is just barely strong enough to pull off an 800 on the SAT I math) to a 20 or so on the AMC 8, maybe 70 or so on the AMC 10, and probably less than 50 on the AMC 12. </p>
<p>To answer the OP’s question, getting an AIME qualification is very nice, but is probably not going to greatly impress schools-- unless math is not your main focus, in which case it is a very nice achievement. USAMO or MOP qualification would be more worthy.</p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>
<p>can it ever prove detrimental to send an update of any kind? (within reason).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Easier material does not necessarily make 800 math SAT (or 150 IQ, or some other result based on a battery of non-specialized questions) a less impressive measure than AIME qualification, since they target different populations. If half as many people qualify for AIME, but half of the perfect SAT results are from generalists with no special interest in math and who don’t participate in competitions, then the indication of ability is similar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Last year the AMC-12 qualifying score for AIME was 88.5, while “below 50” is around the 40-45th percentile and exceeded by some 60-70000 participants. Data is downloadable from the AMC website.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that 800 math SAT and one-time AIME qualification (without a notable AIME score) are of similar selectivity in the recent administration of the exams. In earlier years, before the expansion of the AIME and the added qualification paths, the AIME would have been significantly more selective.</p>
<p>Okay, so perhaps I exaggerated the concordance of scores slightly- I don’t spend time looking at the AMC data sets. </p>
<p>And I suppose I didn’t realize how many people qualified for AIME. But that doesn’t change the prestige involved. Qualification for AIME demonstrates a higher mathematical aptitude than SAT I math does. Perhaps a similar number of people score at the discussed thresholds, but that doesn’t change which one is obviously harder. AMC-takers are self-selected. SAT-takers are not. </p>
<p>I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree, but thank you for writing a well thought out argument. You have an interesting point.</p>
<p>It does not mean much to say that someone is qualified for the AIME. It depends on the AMC score.</p>
<p><a href=“American Mathematics Competitions | Mathematical Association of America”>American Mathematics Competitions | Mathematical Association of America;
<p>
</p>
<p>@coolweather</p>
<p>I disagree that AMC score matters, because it really doesn’t. AIME score does. Which is why senior year AMC really doesn’t mean too much application-wise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More qualifiers means a lower cognitive threshold for reaching AIME, since the intelligence distribution in the population is relatively stable. The number of qualifiers can certainly be increased (while keeping the required performance level and the number of competitors the same) by methods such as improved math instruction, free coaching for all students who register for the contests, or a three-month schoolwork exemption prior to the exam. These would raise the number of competitors who reach the bar of qualification but also reduce the performance of the average qualifier later on, by drawing on a weaker talent pool. </p>
<p>The “prestige” of AIME or any other credential attained relatively early in life is mostly in the predictive power. Solving competition problems has little direct value on its own except as a hobby. It is a signal of what can be achieved later, and in this respect raising the number of qualifers weakens the signal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The self-selection means that the mathematically higher AMC threshold is not necessarily higher as a psychometric threshold. If the generalists who get 800 on the SAT entered math competitions and prepared for the AMC/AIME, they would probably qualify at similar rates. Getting an 800 math score is unimpressive for a math competition hobbyist because it comes after years of preparation. An 800 math score from a specialist in English literature or politics indicates high ability likely to have reached the AIME qualification had it been applied to mathematics.</p>
<p>I thought I’d clarify about the USPhO semi-finals. The number who qualify is a little more than the number who qualify for the USAMO. I think the USPhO have about 320 and the USAMO around 220-250 (though maybe someone could get the exact numbers); so, I think making the USPhO is definitely a big accomplishment comparable to the USAMO, particularly to colleges that would like to have top physics students in their schools.</p>
<p>As to the comparison between AIME and getting an 800 on SAT I Math, there really is no comparison in my mind. My son easily scored an 800 on math in 8th grade on the SAT I but he did math competitions for the first time last year as a sophomore and only got a 3 on the AIME. I am sure he’ll do better this year after taking an AIME AoPS class, but the math topics covered by the AIME as far as I can tell aren’t part of a typical high school curriculum. I know next to nothing about math but I’m pretty sure things like number theory, combinatorics, and probability are not covered in a typical high school curriculum.</p>
<p>Siserune- it’s funny how you seem to be only considering an 800 on the Math SAT1…there is no question that scoring a perfect score on the AMC is much much harder than scoring a perfect on the Math SAT 1. Likewise, scoring well enough on the AMC to qualify for AIME is harder than scoring well enough on the SAT1 Math to apply to top tier colleges (where well enough defined as 700+).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IF they did, but do they? No. Also, there is no evidence that what you claimed here holds true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At a typical high school, you’re correct. People really do need to go and study outside material if they wish to qualify for the AIME.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I’m pretty sure that most people who end up doing well in math competitions get their 800 on math before they spend years of time preparing. For example, one of my friends who is quite adept at math competitions got his 800 back in 7th grade, and he had not even begun studying for math competitions at that point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m considering the perceptive observation by JHS (post #11) that the number of AIME qualifiers is comparable to the number of SAT+ACT perfect math scores. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s consistent with the calibration of AIME qualification as having roughly 2-3 times the raw selectivity (number of attainers) and about the same psychometric selectivity (considering that SAT is taken by non-mathematicians) as a perfect math SAT.</p>
<p>Perfect AMC-12 score is probably comparable to taking a large number, such as 20 or more, of AP exams with perfect scores. Both achievements are beyond the ordinary use of the credential, such as passing to the second stage of the olympiad or getting college credit. They require a specific “fit” of skills to the task (speed for AMC12, endurance on AP, accuracy) and often a deliberately pursued goal of attaining a maximum result. Both can involve sandbagging, such as people who doubt they can reach the IMO gunning for a perfect score on the first-round exam, or people who could have graduated high school early, staying and continuing to accumulate test credits like high scores on an arcade game. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is consistent with, and follows from, a calibration of AIME qualification as similar to SAT math perfect score. </p>
<p>The questions raised here (thread title and OP question, post #1, post #11) were about the selectivity of AIME qualification, especially first-time qualification in grade 12, and how these compare to a perfect math SAT. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some evidence was posted, as you might have noticed. First, insofar as these are effectively IQ tests, the similarity in raw number of qualifiers is one indicator. Second, the higher number of SAT/ACT perfect math scores dictates that most are coming from people who did not qualify for AIME. Only half of the AIME qualifications per year are from new individuals (the mean number of qualifications is about 2 per individual, maybe a little higher). The rate of repeat performance for SAT math 800s is much lower than that of AIME requalification. </p>
<p>Taking this into account, at most 1 in 4, and it could be lower, of SAT/ACT perfect scorers are coming from AIME qualifiers. If every single AIME qualifier gets an 800, and for each AIME qualifier, two additional AMC contestants also reach the SAT 800, it would still leave a sizable horde of non-math-specialists getting the 800s. A more realistic assumption is to extend the SAT math scale to a normal distribution extending past 800, assume that AIME qualification lies somewhat on this scale, and model the SAT outcome distribution of AIME qualifiers and near-qualifiers to assess the likely number of 800s from this population. In particular, the imperfect correlation between SAT percentiles and AMC percentiles would tend to break any assumption that the AMC contestants are monopolizing the high SAT math scores. There is an independent source of those, namely the smart non-mathematicians. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They get 800 after spending years of preparation in mathematics, sometimes through competitions (“math team”) and sometimes other things. That includes: math classes, math clubs, math books, math puzzles, math websites, math camps, math games; academic summer/weekend/afterschool activities and enrichment programs; and equivalent activities in computer programming, puzzle solving, science, engineering or hacking. The ability to solve an entire math SAT develops early, but the ability to do this reliably enough to have a good chance at 800 no matter when taken, generally comes with practice at other skills such as test-taking, more advanced math, or competitions. The age at which this occurs will vary with ability, interest and specialization. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s maybe a one- or 1.5-year difference in the time needed to learn the additional mathematics, so if first-time AIME qualification is roughly an SAT 800, an 800 in 7th grade should be similar to qualifying in the 8th or 9th grade. The data do support this.</p>
<p>The number of 800s in 7th grade (for talent testing programs) is about 1 in 1000 or less, out of 100-200000 taking the test per year over the past decade, so in the low hundreds at the very most. It could be much lower, such as a few dozen per year; College Board only published data by 50-point score intervals and there was a rapid decrease in the upper tail of the distribution. The number of AIME test takers in 8th grade and below last year was 195, with 459 separate “qualification events” in that population, and 59 of the AIME takers in 7th grade. Accounting for the probably large fraction of non-US qualifiers in the AMC data could alter the figures by a modest factor such as 1.5 or 2 but it cannot change the take-home message that 7th grade perfect math SAT is comparable in rarity to an 8th (and maybe 7th!) grade AIME qualification. The selectivity does seem to be similar between the two exam metrics, though I would never have suspected that before looking at the data.</p>
<p>This is from the 2010 AMC statistics. Qualification for AIME has gotten easier faster than the SAT math section has been weakened. In earlier years reaching AIME would have been relatively more difficult.</p>
<p>This is such an interesting discussion and one that I can’t really contribute to except to use my son as an anecdotal example. In his case, qualifying for AIME came after his 800 in math because he never attempted to qualify before 10th grade since he didn’t do math competitions in 8th and 9th grade. He is not tops in our city by any stretch of the imagination, but he was, in 7th grade, 8th in our large city in MathCounts but with no one to help him, he placed only about 70th in Ca. in the state tournament. After that year, though, he was turned off by math competitions and didn’t do anything for two years. Now, as a junior, he’s definitely <em>not</em> 8th best in math competitions by a long shot. He came in at the bottom and worked his way up to mid-level competitor. His math competition math skills are rusty; qualifying for AIME last year and this year was a goal for him. Perhaps this year, he might have as a goal USAMO but given that his AIME was only 100.5, it’s highly unlikely that just taking one AoPS AIME class will give him a 10-11 on the AIME. He will be happy with a 6-8 score, I am guessing.</p>
<p>As far as SAT I math, I think practice in taking the real test was probably most helpful. He took a free SAT I test in 6th grade to see if he could sit still long enough to finish. His math was 580. In 7th grade, he took it again to qualify for SET. He watched some borrowed math videos to prepare and scored a 700 (barely made it in!). In 8th grade, I don’t think he prepped because he’d had so much more classroom math (had finished Calc I by that time) and the 800 came easily. He took the SAT I for the last time this year and again got an 800. </p>
<p>So, my observation is that SAT math is your typical high school math-if you take good math classes, you’ll do well. Math competition math requires a specific set of math skills that students have to be very honed into in order to do well. Math competitors who do well spend hours upon hours honing said skills. My son has the opportunity to work with an amazing local math tutor who focused on olympiad level math but after one session, my son knew that’s not what he wanted to do at all. It was way too intense.</p>
<p>The AMC isn’t too bad…I managed to qualify for AIME despite the fact that my math ability isn’t great.</p>
<p>With that said, however, I don’t think it will hurt to update them on that as long as you also have another update. A single update will look a bit weak, especially if it’s just qualification.</p>
<p>I remember updating Harvard on qualifying for AIME (I would later score okay on it…7 or 8 if I remember correctly) along with an award I won. I don’t think it hurt me and it probably helped (well, that’s just speculation).</p>