<p>Personally, I think CC is a discussion board. If threads by high school kids are a primary college info resource for kids and families, they are relying on an anon, unvetted resource. How savvy is that? What does it tell us? I don’t get the repeated praise of rejection threads as valuable info-- one hs kid summarizing his stats and ECs, another hs kid is sympathizing. Neither knows what went wrong, what the point of failure really was. In many cases, they can’t explain or teach anything.</p>
<p>poetgrl#1936: I think we cross-posted. But since my web browser has now shifted to a new page: Part of the reason I never gave up was simple <em>luck</em> in terms of the timing of the inevitable set-backs, when I could deal with them. I know a few people who did quit at various points. I don’t think the fact that I continued was due to deeper love of the subject (though I do love it), nor to any superior personal qualities (though I am tenacious bordering on bull-headed–and probably did not need to even mention that here). A whole lot of it was just luck.</p>
<p>
a student with any self confidence would make a mental note( if they actually cared this much), “I will do my undergrad at Harvard if I must, but I will go to MIT for grad school. They rejected me once, it won’t happen again.” any other reaction ( after the initial disappointment) is …well…</p>
<p>And what if they don’t get into grad school there? Its not the end of the world!!! If they think it is , then OCD might be an issue.</p>
<p>lookingforward #1941: I used to think that I knew the best academically qualified applicant who was rejected by MIT (a generation down and unrelated). Perusal of the outcomes posts on the MIT thread showed that was not the case. It was a relief in a way, and certainly informative–I give the posts a high likelihood of being true.</p>
<p>A mathy kid rejected by Harvard but accepted by Princeton might be disappointed but is not likely to have the same negative reaction as a math superstar who gets rejected by MIT but accepted to Princeton. MIT has a very unique reputation and status, such that you hardly ever think of the non quantitative majors the school offers. I have never met anyone who said he wanted to go to MIT to major in English or political science. And for good reason, because the school’s stature in non-math fields like linguistics is nonetheless still tied somehow to the world of math and computers.</p>
<p>QM-- I have had some success in an “impossible” field, and I agree there were many points in time where I might have quit, but did not. But, the older I get, the more I think that’s the way it is with everything, really. FWIW. I tell my kids that all the time, actually, that so much of life is just about being ready for it when the opportunity comes along, as it will eventually for anyone who works hard enough at something they have talent to pursue. In the meantime, the guy who sets out to study physics frequently ends up a quant and the poet ends up an attorney, and so it goes.</p>
<p>QM- but the info presented is incomplete. Doesn’t that matter, in qualifying the value? Unless your knowledge of that other kid- all details, the full app and LoRs, plus a thorough reading of what the college says it wants and expects- your info is incomplete, too.</p>
<p>Kids who want a tippy top just have to be savvy enough to read the colleges’ web info, not rely on other assurances that it’s all about “passions” and stats, etc.</p>
<p>I find it interesting that people who didn’t go to a magnet school or compete in the AMC/USAMO/etc. are quite confident that it’s not that tough to make USAMO if you go to one of these magnet schools. </p>
<p>I also find it interesting that there is a group of people on here who act like people with amazing accomplishments are losers if they complain about admissions. And their accomplishments are minimized on here as the result of “opportunity” rather than the result of innate talent and hard work, as if these opportunities just fell from the sky and hit them on the head like Newton’s apple. Yet when people point out the myriad ways that anyone can get these opportunities, the same people are like, “That’s too hard. Why should I have to do that? Too many sacrifices.” You know how many of these people found the opportunities that you never heard about? They found them from years of searching for them.</p>
<p>bovertine, #1939: About the temptation to switch to something easier–I really meant in graduate research and beyond. The comfortable thing about class work, even graduate class work, is that the pace is set by the professor, more or less. This means that there are times when a student can coast (more for the group of hyper-talented students that I am talking about than for me, but still some for me). </p>
<p>When you get into research, you yourself are setting the pace. So you go sailing quickly past the easy stuff and spend 90% of your research time being stuck; at least this is true for months at a time. When you figure something major out, you may have a period of just working through the consequences, where things are pretty straightforward. Then it’s back to being stuck again. I have a few research problems that I solved about 4 years after I first tried to work on them, and some that are still hanging around unsolved for 30 years.</p>
<p>(I am the “quantum mechanics” type of quant, not a quant-quant. Didn’t even know the term when I picked the username.)</p>
<p>collegealum314, post #1948: Yep, yep, yep, and yep.</p>
<p>^ But I don’t have the foggiest what c.alum is talking about or who said it. Who said test info could be found online or self-studied through whatever book it was, thus somewhat minimizing? Who said too many sacrifices?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I know this. And many of my friends ended up attorney’s, but I did not. ;)</p>
<p>collegealum and QM, I don’t see where people here are discounting/minimizing accomplishments like USAMO. Just some are pointing out that not every good math student participates in these kinds of contests. Some kids are good at math but are also focused on sports, music, etc. which also take up many hours ( as do these math clubs, contests).</p>
<p>Doesn’t it ever strike you as odd, lookingforward, that it is so often impossible for the rejected student to know what went wrong? After all, true red flags are colorful and attention-getting–they are noticeable. The fact that there’s this black box from which results pop out that confuse even admissions savvy people, is exactly why students get exasperated and discouraged over college admissions results. If they can say something like, “Yeah, well my SAT scores were a little low for MIT,” that’s a comfort. Then it’s not some unknown failing, a something-that’s-wrong-with-me that was noticed by the “experts” at selecting the most qualified applicants. Or just as bad, it’s not that you were the victim of some kind of odd discrimination against kids who didn’t fail enough, or were TOO mathy, or worst of all, you were a member of an over-represented ethnic group.</p>
<p>Right, sevmom #1953: collegealum314 and I think that scoring points on the USAMO (above some minimum number) should be sufficient, but not necessary as an indicator of extreme talent. </p>
<p>We are basing this on familiarity with the exam itself (although I did not qualify–I am not even sure that it existed which I was in high school).</p>
<p>GFG- no. Frankly, it does not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone said that USAMO winners were not brilliant! Or that their accomplishments were the result of opportunity. Just that you can’t be sure they are the very best based on the criteria given ( a test that most students do not take). Of course these students worked hard and they are the best of those that competed. I think the problem is extrapolating that to mean they are the best of everyone ( whether they participated or not). The complaint is that one EC will give a student a golden ticket. Math contests are clearly an EC! </p>
<p>And then, the best at what…math contests? Granted, many have other broad reaching skills, but being a USAMO winner does not guarantee that those other skills exist ( I would assume it is more likely they do than not).</p>
<p>I think people are just not happy with the, " I know how it should be and these colleges are wrong!" maybe you’re right, maybe not. Is it really THAT IMPORTANT? </p>
<p>Btw-- students know not TP put CC as something they enjoy;college rejection automatic :-)</p>
<p>There is a difference between being the best of the best and being admitted when 1740 people are being taken. We are saying that performance on the USAMO is a sufficient indicator for the latter.</p>
<p>^ I think it may be. But the criteria for admissions are broader. That’s not even up for argument.</p>
<p>The number of views this thread has attracted is beginning to approach the cost in dollars of a HYPSM undergraduate degree.</p>