<p>“PCHope, I still don’t think you’ve said what constitutes impact.”</p>
<p>As i said earlier, in my narrow definition of reseachers with significant research impact, I would only count those people whose bodies of works are still relevant, directly or indirectly through their “offsprings”, at least 10 years after their retirement. In a way, it means that such researchers have left an impact on the fundamental directions of their specific research fields. While publications at top journals often lead to tenure for many people, they may not qualify as impactful works if they are transient in nature.</p>
<p>Ok, so what counts as having a body of work that is still relevant? Recently, I was looking at the bio and publications of an alumna of my university, who died in her 90’s. She co-authored a paper that was still being cited 50 years after its publication. Does that count, or do there have to be multiple papers? Or is there some other measure?</p>
<p>So have the majority of the people on this thread concluded that USAMO does not equal auto admit to any “elite” university? Can you parents move onto something more relevant please?</p>
<p>If the definition of elite university is a private one, the conclusion is they can admit whoever they da$# well please. That could be someone who scored a zero on USAMO over someone who actually won it.</p>
<p>Aren’t there quite a few universities which essentially auto-admit students possessing a high enough combination of GPA and SAT scores? They are rolling admissions schools, so it’s on a first-come, first-served basis until the spots are gone. In addition, since there’s a long list of schools which offer automatic scholarships for National Merit Finalists, I would assume these individuals are also auto-admits if they decide to apply. We’re discussing a rarer accomplishment than A’s and strong PSAT and SAT scores. So, then it’s only objectionable if MIT were to do the same? </p>
<p>By the way, I don’t fully support the idea of auto-admission for winners of elite math competitions, but at the same time I’d cry foul over the rejection by MIT of kids like alh’s son (I think that’s who it was) who seemed to be so perfectly qualified and perfectly suited. Some kids are as stellar as is humanly possible, and really should be accepted by any school to which they apply.</p>
<p>I realize that you are not interested in the thought of USAMO qualification, limabeans01. Have you looked at the questions that are asked? You can find the questions up to 2008 at this site: [USAMO</a> Archive](<a href=“American Mathematics Competitions | Mathematical Association of America”>American Mathematics Competitions | Mathematical Association of America)
I don’t know whether the more recent ones are available anywhere.
On the one hand, you may find the questions to be somewhat artificial, if you are not mathematically oriented. On the other hand, they do have some qualities in common with mathematical papers that are significant. They are set by mathematicians, and I don’t think they just dug up obscure points, without deeper connections.</p>
<p>As far as broadening the number of universities where significant research can be done in physics goes: perhaps this will happen in theoretical physics. I doubt that it will happen in experimental physics. When my department hires an Assistant Professor, we offer start-up packages in the range from $400,000 to $1 million (depending on the field and equipment needs). The research infrastructure in terms of shared instrumentation that is available runs another $10 million plus. On top of that, we have numerous support personnel to assist the faculty member with maintenance, trouble-shooting, computer services, and people to run some of the instruments (and train the grad students in their use). These are not things that can be broadly duplicated at a very large number of colleges. We are nowhere near the top in research expenditures. So to generalize: with a few exceptions, I do not expect a great broadening in the number of institutions with significant efforts in experimental physics.</p>
I would wager that the schools like these have much lower yields than a school like MIT. So they can better afford to do this. If MIT offers someone a position in the class it is far more likely they will accept it, so they have to be more careful.</p>
<p>One thing nobody has mentioned is that if you are going to auto admit these USAMO students that automatically means you are going to have to reject someone else, a person who is likely pretty qualified in their own right. Supposing a school like MIT admits some students based on hooks such as ethnicity are we to assume these AA admits are sacrosanct? So even if they have lower stats than a kid you shuffle off to make room for your math game wizard, tough luck? I can really see this being a mess. I honestly don’t see how people can demand empirical fairness on teh one hand, and not carry that attitude to the extreme. I think it is inconsistent.</p>
<p>If you are fine with the “holisitc” approach, as I am, then I say it is up to the university, period. It is a lot easier to be fully consistent, IMO.</p>
<p>Ok quaint mech, you see this as important. Sorry I don’t share your passion. But then again I have not reached the level of education you have. I do however, have confidence that the admissions people at MIT are not a bunch of moron’s who can’t see the forest for the trees ( maybe they are, but if you feel that way, just say it and quit pussyfooting around.)</p>
<p>You have given the example of the kid who gives up on math/science based on an MIT rejection-- I think it has been clearly laid out that that type of student was never MIT material to begin with. Can’t handle failure and they want to do research? Are you kidding me?</p>
<p>Oh, and the kid can’t write about how they dealt with failure on the MIT app because they might “fail” at explaining what they consider failure. come on. It’s getting pretty far fetched.</p>
<p>But whatever, you live in your world and I live in mine. I don’t give up when people tell me I’m not the best ( because duh…there is ALWAYS someone better). I don’t take that as a criticism…just a reality. I appreciate those who have more insight than me and use that to make the world a better place. I’m sure you feel the same. </p>
<p>When we think we know it all, we’ve lost perspective and our ability to think critically. I hope I never graduate to that level.</p>
<p>Well, even in holistic admissions I believe that truly exceptional academic prowess should have priority, because that quality more than any other serves the university’s primary mission. After that, the committee can feel free to take student A with a 2350 SAT and 4.4 WGPA who plays the oboe over student B with a 2350 SAT and 4.4 WGPA from a comparable school who edited the high school newspaper. Of course, I understand that the comparisons won’t usually be that neat, but one merely good student isn’t likely to be that much more or less impactful on the campus community than another good student. A truly brilliant student, however, is rare and there is potential for tremendous intellectual benefit to both professors and peers, as well as the possiblity for accolades for the student and university.</p>
<p>No one is saying you should quit an endeavor the minute you encounter failure or rejection, or realize you aren’t the best. That is oversimplifying the issue. It depends on why you’ve failed, how far down the totem pole the failure places you, what means are available to you to improve or compensate for revealed weaknesses, how far along on the road toward the goal you’ve already progressed when the failure occurs, how important to you the endeavor is and how passionate you are about doing it, the impact your quitting or sticking with it has on other people, and a myriad of other considerations.</p>
<p>Pages later in this thread, I still see nothing admirable or noble in being foolishly unrealistic in one’s perseverance. If you are overweight and clumsy at age 14 and don’t make the high school gymnastics team, it’s stupid to maintain a stated goal of earning an Olympic berth in gymnastics. Personally, I’d have deemed it silly to even try out for the high school team and back in middle school I likely would have learned to throw the shot put or something else.</p>
<p>However, I suspect some of you would think continuing to practice gymnastics and coming back for next year’s tryout shows courage or determination. Well, if the determination is still related to becoming an Olympic gymnast, then it’s sheer stupidity and stubborness. If the determination is about overcoming one’s awkward flabbiness, that’s more understandable. However, even that revised goal could be pursued in a more appropriate setting or manner than the high school gymnastics team. One could work out with a private trainer at the local gym instead.</p>
<p>(Wallace Stevens was never employed as an actuary. He attended Harvard and New York Law School, and for most of his career as a poet was a practicing insurance lawyer, ultimately becoming Vice President and General Counsel of The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Insurance Company. His contemporary, William Carlos Williams, was a practicing physician for all of his adult life.</p>
<p>Poet Dana Gioia was a high-level marketing executive at General Foods Corp. for a number of years before leaving to write full time.)</p>
<p>Well, GFG, in holistic for a top school, “truly exceptional academic prowess” alone does not have any trump power. Keyword: alone. Concept: outliers. MIT has a nice blurb that reveals their sentiments on that page I linked with their comms and humanities requirements. Again, by outliers, I don’t mean one extreme of the Bell Curve. Instead, it has to do with unilateral.</p>
<p>Finally, no doubt some of you can’t fathom that a young person would conduct a detailed analysis of his chances of attaining a specific high level career like the one done by QM. Indeed, the vast majority of kids coudn’t and wouldn’t think like that, and if they were to do so, moms like certain posters would tell them to think positive and keep striving.</p>
<p>But there are those rare individuals who, at any given moment, could easily give you an honest, detailed assessment of how every area of their life is progressing, what their strengths and weaknesses are in each domain, and how they stack up vis a vis their goals as well as in comparison to their competitors and comrades. I have a kid just like that. Few people understand how his mind works, hence this quality is often mistaken for pessimism or judgmentalism. The positive is he’s highly practical and efficient and seldom wastes time or effort. The negative is sometimes he dwells on his mistakes or proclaims future failure too early when he might have found a way to succeed. </p>
<p>I have another child who would give you a much less detailed and less discerning assessment of where she stands in life. If she views herself as performing better than just one person in every endeavor, then she’s doing OK–great even. If she gets a C on a midterm, she won’t focus on the 20 classmates who the professors says scored an A, she’ll focus on the poor kid next to her who failed and thus will believe she’s doing just fine. This is not a consciously self-justifying thing from what I can tell. The advantage to her is she doesn’t get hung up on failure and possesses a wonderful optimism about what she can do and achieve. That’s a very beneficial state of mind which preserves her happiness and self-esteem and can often carry her blithely to success. But at other times, it blinds her and she becomes the equivalent of the misquided fat girl above.</p>
<p>It’s a personality thing. It’s not an issue of upbringing or good/bad character or any such thing. But the kids like the first would be the kind QM is thinking of.</p>
<p>I disagree, looking forward. It seems that each year HYP send out press releases which toot their own horn by highlighting a particularly stellar student or two who’ll be attending in the fall. Those are the no-brainer admittees that I refer to.</p>
<p>Anyway, of course, it’s easy to theorize that one kid denied some extraordinary opp could be that loss to the world, the universe and all time. To paint that loss as having “drastic” implications and that the world could never recoup or regroup and everyone would suffer and and. Well, then it’s so obvious we all “win” if we move to the new plan.</p>
<p>It’s easy to “sell” a mere 18 kids displacing another viable 18. Too easy. Then what happens to the destinys of those displaced kids who might have gone on to greatness? Too easy to minimize those because, after all, they didn’t have the highest scores or win in some math tests. Too easy to hint that, in the absence of this new admissions scheme…MIT is headed down the drain.</p>
<p>Yeah, fear sells. What you want is an extraordinary institute for highest level math achievers and/or highest level SAT scorers. One that doesn’t expect a variety of skills and experiences or personal qualities not directly related to their professional plans set by 17. Somehow, one that is attractive in its narrow scope, financially viable, functionally sound. Go for it. Just don’t expect MIT to turn the spaceship around because it’s what you think makes sense.</p>
<p>MIT is one school, with limited spaces. Just one school.</p>
<p>All this protestation on behalf of once-in-a-generation (or whatever) geniuses is truly puzzling to me. Where exactly is the trash heap of brilliant scholars who have been cruelly tossed aside by admissions committees at this country’s elite institutions of higher education? Nowhere, is where.</p>
<p>Shravas, you didn’t mention that Aaronson was 14 when he started undergrad and 19 for grad school…might have had something to do with it! (And I will add that Aaronson is awesome. S worked with him for two summers during college.)</p>
<p>S1 went to one of those DC area specialized public math/sci/CS programs. It was an incredible opportunity to have a critical mass of students who were ready to take on high level, challenging work. You ask why do so many kids in the DC area qualify? This is an area where a large number of parents have graduate degrees. Education as a ticket up is taken seriously. S1 never qualified for USAMO – was far more interested in USACO – though he took the AIME every year, as did pretty much all of his classmates. His school had kids take USAXXO exams as a matter of policy, based on what they were doing in the classroom. S made it to the top 150 in USAPhO without doing anything other than having taken lots of math and taking mathematical physics senior year. Half his math phys class made the top 150. He never bothered putting it on his college apps.</p>
<p>His school has kids who qualify for one Int’l Olympiad or another every year. The kids who get there are those who have been eating and breathing this stuff since they were kids and were studying with profs at UMD by 9th or 10th grade (if not sooner). What I found was that these kids weren’t studying to get to an Olympiad – it was that they pursued their interests to such depth that qualifying for an Olympiad became possible.</p>
<p>That said, the atmosphere could get pretty cutthroat, though S refused to play that game. </p>
<p>IIRC, MIT asked for AIME/USAMO scores when S1 applied. This was when MIT still had its own app.</p>
<p>ETA: And not everyone who gets into MIT decides to attend. There were no tears shed in our household over college rejections – just a tough time picking from wonderful choices that were great fits.</p>