<p>I also went to a regular high school, so I have some experience with that as well.</p>
<p>As it appears, 1/5 of high schools participate in the AMC. If 100 students graduating a year have USAMO designation, then at most 500 students had the ability to do so. </p>
<p>BTW, I don’t remember Exeter having anybody make USAMO when I went to school in the 90’s. I suspect that their recent good performance in these contests is more a result of aggressive recruiting than the value added by coaching/instruction.</p>
<p>I feel that USAMO should be a good hook, but not an auto-admit, unless there are a bunch of other auto-admit criteria. What I mean is if a school in Texas indicates that anyone who’s in the 10% of his HS class is an auto-admit, I don’t see anything wrong in saying so should an 120+ in the AMC-12. I don’t see this as good for an institution like MIT.</p>
<p>Having said that, I’m also against disregarding accomplishments because they’re not easily available to everyone. For this to be viable, the test has to be generic like the SAT/ACT, which makes it unsuitable to differentiate between the students in the top 1% which is what a school like MIT is made to do. </p>
<p>I don’t know how many of you have actually looked at problems in USAMO or AIME (or Putnam for undergrads). DS and I did a lot of it 4-6 years ago found them narrow and limited to math, while his interests included comp sci, engineering, and other areas. So what I’m saying is that while USAMO is a great accomplishment that demonstrates a student who made it is way above most of the 800 math SATs, it’s in one specific area. Another kid could have equally strong accomplishments based on his/her performance in a Physics contest or an engineering project. </p>
<p>To summarize, I don’t see a justification to reward the USAMO more than these, while at the same time I don’t think any of these should be underplayed because these sorts of opportunities aren’t available to everyone. DD1 had better SAT scores than DS, but the latter had a history of contests up to AIME (didn’t qualify for USAMO), ARML, math Bees, programming contests, etc. that hopefully were a good part of the reason he got admitted to the program he sought that DD1 wouldn’t have.</p>
<p>That’s simply not a true statement at all. They have a higher CHANCE than the “average” comparably strong applicant to an Ivy who doesn’t have the athletic talent, but they aren’t shoo-ins or auto-admits by any stretch of the imagination.</p>
<p>Would just love to see the whining if an elite school were to say they were going to “auto-admit” any athlete with SAT scores over X, or any legacy with SAT scores over X. I think you guys are willfully overlooking the concept of building an entire class, not just selecting for one or two slots.</p>
<p>Bel, but the current standards include scores, grades, rigor, essays and short answers, LoRs, school context- and ECs. Some argue the non-quantitative aspects are subjectively reviewed, so even including essays seems counter to “auto-admit.” </p>
<p>The essays and short answers are not a personality test, per se- not simply to red flag certain scary sorts. They are a kid’s chance to reveal his thinking. Similar for ECs (but here, there’s an added element- what the kid is/has been willing to engage in, beyond his own goals, how he pursues responsibilities and even what he thinks is valid in a college review.)</p>
<p>That’s the value in the “rest of the app” that people pooh-pooh. They are picking individuals to add to their community, likely to enhance their communities in a variety of ways. Not silhouettes.</p>
<p>Has any college ever done a study where it identified who contributed most to college life
(for example starting or leading clubs, enhancing class discussions) and then tried to correlate these contributions to the “personal” ratings on the application? I get tired of asking this.</p>
<p>Thanks lookingforward. I did skim through this, and it seems they are saying that recruited athletes are not auto-admits even if they clear the academic index requirement. However, it also says they should be admitted by the same process as other students even though they get a “likely letter” a lot earlier than anyone else. I wonder how many likely letters are not followed by admission. </p>
<p>Also, this seems to contrast with the general notion of a “slot system.” I guess it just means that the a given coach get X spots guarenteed but that admissions has some vetoe power even if the proposed student-athlete has cleared the academic index requirement. If it’s just a hook that raises chances of admission, then it is not fundamentally different than MIT"s system. MIT adcoms usually contrast admissions for athletes with other D3 schools and ivies by saying it does not have a “slot system.”</p>
<p>i know nothing about the USAMO, but i wonder if someone could address the following point. I understand from this thread that the problems are very very difficult. But they are still predefined problems with known solutions, correct? I’m not exactly sure how to express this thought because i haven’t thought it through entirely, but why would we (society) want to encourage elite institutions to create more incentives for these kinds of contests/ problems instead of encouraging students to engage in the kinds of problem-defining and problem- solving rewarded in the Intel competitions or national art and writing awards or other similar competitions that reward innovation and building on existing knowledge?</p>
<p>There is something deeply troubling to me about the amount of resources and mental energy that goes into prepping for the SAT and other standardized tests. it breeds solipsistic thinking in our kids that i find incredibly unhealthy. But i also think standardized tests are necessary, so I am not arguing against them. But I’m wary of providing more incentives for the most exceptionally talented to view high scores on standardized tests as an end in itself. does this make any sense?</p>
<p>And then, those people who can do something about it will laugh and ask themselves “Does anyone REALLY believe we should admit more of the students we almost never turn down? Do they REALLY want us to reward MORE people who excel at competition that were never designed to play a role in … admissions?”</p>
<p>While I understand why a system should reward excellence, I really do not see why there is such discussion about the few who fall through the cracks and do NOT get that “expected” admission, and perhaps fail to collect a full panoply of ego-boosting admission scalps. </p>
<p>No matter how one slices it, the schools DO reward the accomplishments, including those that are directly related to the resources available and rely on adults and mercenaries to place fat thumbs on the scales as it happens in those rigged Intel et al scientific “competitions.” And do reward them with a vengeance!</p>
<p>Fwiw, a proposal that the students who are already admitted at extremely high levels should now enjoy the benefit of an … automatic admission does rub me the wrong way. Perhaps that moronic Occupy Something movement did influence me in the end, as a discussion about the top 0.1 percent deserving more advantages borders the obscene.</p>
<p>No highly selective school will ever declare any achievement an qualification for automatic admission. The entirety of this discussion has centered around the fact that it would be unfair to students who have no knowledge of these tests. This is based on the erroneous assumption that if MIT announced that USAMO qualifier was a guaranteed admit, the test would stay relatively unknown.</p>
<p>Imagine, for a moment, that they did. Some claim that this test “isn’t coachable.” I don’t have experience with this test, but everything is coachable. Kids would be raised studying for the AMC/AIME/USAMO etc. All other ECs would take a back seat for maniacal studying for the test, creating a situation similar to that in India and China with the nationalized exam thing. Non-STEM interests would be discouraged; who would want to throw their name into the Harvard lottery when they could be an auto-admit to MIT? Better get back to studying for the AIME. The whole thing would be madness, obsessive focusing on a series of tests, exactly what MIT is trying to prevent.</p>
<p>On a different note, I disagree that competition mathematics is the best or only way a strong math student can demonstrate their potential. These sorts of competitions don’t appeal to everyone. What about the student taking complex analysis or differential equations in high school? What about the student doing groundbreaking mathematical research? Are these “lesser” pursuits than competition math? Probably only in the way that Stanford is a “lesser” school. ;)</p>
<p>bovertine-nope, just a regular public school with a parental population that wants their kids to do well in school. We do have a fantastic administration and that filters down to the staff and faculty and because the kids are just all around great kids, they do attract very good teachers for the most part. We do have problem students and not everyone goes on to college but most do and most stay in college. Housing is expensive here compared to other parts of the area, not as expensive as some though. A lot of kids do end up at the state flagship but most go for engineering or other technical field when they do go. We do seem to have a lot of STEM parents so that probably makes a difference. We also don’t have a large lower income population which does skew numbers some. We do get a lot of people moving to our district because of other programs like music, theater, sports though. The administration is smart enough to know programs like those attract families that want a good education.</p>
<p>I deleted my mini-rant, but I really wish people wouldn’t generalize and pass judgement on thousands of kids that they don’t know. </p>
<p>Yes, Intel competitions are skewed towards the wealthy but many of the kids who do them, ** do ** work hard. They don’t all get data handed to them (though I know this happens). There’s a lot of work that goes into completing any project successfully and getting good results. </p>
<p>There will always be people that cheat, but I’m inclined to believe that most 1st prize/Grand Award winners have unique, innovative ideas that they came up by themselves. The kids who really didn’t do much independent thinking/got data don’t do that well. Intel et al do their best to root this out by having intensive questioning and judging periods.</p>
<p>Also, you can do science fair by yourself, without a mentor or secure mentors by yourself without connections. This still skews to the wealthier population, though.</p>
<p>OMG, here is one post or question I have to agree with Beliavsky. I do believe that such study should be extremely important. </p>
<p>Although I also believe that the results would be important for a very different reason, as it might provide the answer as to why the adcoms have learned to PASS on a certain category of students. This study could indeed shed the light on the continuing POOR contribution of the students who pursued every INDIVIDUAL accomplishments possible, but gave a cold shoulder to group activities, team work, and community support.</p>
<p>That study could become the standard reply to the posts that WILL show up in a few weeks and in April and lament how a first violinist with 4800/36 test scores and 21 APs was rejected by HYPS, and how they got screwed by discrimination and AA preferences. </p>
<p>Fwiw, high school students know those students; college students do know those students; and slowly but surely adcoms are learning to recognize them as well! </p>
<p>Differential equations is probably easier to get an “A” in than calculus. It certainly requires less intuition. </p>
<p>Analysis or other advanced math classes? It is generally easier to get an “A” in these classes than to make USAMO, or definitely easier than to score points on the USAMO exam. However, performance in these types of classes should be important. They help a lot for admission to Caltech, for instance. They help a lot less than they used to at MIT.</p>
<p>I’ve never seen groundbreaking research done in math by anyone who hasn’t also made MOSP (one level above USAMO.)</p>
<p>There is no need to generalize. And even less need to trivialize the abject gamesmanship that has permeated those competitions. The evidence is easy to find. </p>
<p>And, there is an easy way to stop this egregious boondoggle. Have the competition such as Intel delaying ALL results to May and, thus, well beyond the admission results. Everything else would still be there … the glory, the money, the attention, name it. </p>
<p>What would be the result? A drastic drop in the participation of people who do it solely for admission purposes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To that I’d borrow from Juvenal and say “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.” If they were doing their best, the results would be quite different, and a lot fewer paint-by-the-numbers candidates would emerge … year after year from the same labs and LI trains! </p>
<p>The reality is that, similarly to the world of beauty pageants, the judges and mentors play musical chairs and form a cliquish, self protecting, and navel-gazing tribe.</p>
<p>I agree that there are many kids who game the system for admissions but there also lots of truly passionate kids out there who really, really love science and benefit from the experience. Even at my country’s national fair, which is a little less extravagant-it’s just so nice to be with peers and randomly talk about nerdy topics and get to travel to cool places. </p>
<p>Yes, I know family friends or friend of a friend sometimes give kids results to present as their own. Lots of kids don’t understand what the hell it is that they’re doing. But for those kids, there are students who design their own procedures, call and email lots of professors on their own and do unique things. Furthermore, there is very intense questioning at both events and if you look at the projects that won, it’s the novel, interesting ones that tend to win the top prizes; the ‘regurgitated’ stuff doesn’t do as well. </p>
<p>And even if kids DO work in labs, if they understand everything that they’re doing, the purpose for each experiment and can really explain ideas and did the work themselves, I don’t think it’s necessarily bad. Yes, it favors those who are more wealthy but these students really did stuff. As such, I think it’s unfair to completely write off ALL Science Fair participants.</p>
<p>I am not as high on Intel as with some other competitions, except with the math, where the student is much more likely to direct the research direction themselves. However, Intel finalists do have a decent record of winning Nobel Prizes.</p>
<p>Xiggi, have you done lab research before? Just mastering the lab techniques and being able to troubleshoot the results is an accomplishment in itself. Also, reading the literature enough to answer questions and present well are also skills. The ideal case is that the kid thinks of the project himself, and I imagine that a person’s ability to win these competitions goes way up if they have done so. (There are mentor recs at some point.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many people would do community service if it didn’t help with admission?</p>