<p>So Marite - if you were to guess, why do you think he got (if indeed ) turned down?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point is why would anyone turn down a proven quantity for someone that is unproven–especially when you are talking about IMO level. Frankly, I doubt Harvard admissions thinks they found someone more talented than the IMO guy. More likely, they took someone over the IMO guy who plays the oboe well and also is a good math student or who volunteered in Ecuador or something.</p>
<p>Unless you are Gauss, you have to be fairly advanced (beyond calculus) in order to be able to get to USAMO and beyond. So it’s not all IQ. But it’s hard to predict whether someone could be a true star without any of these distinctions, especially when the decision is being made by people who don’t know the candidate and who also, like Quantmech says, don’t have any expertise or experience in math.</p>
<p>Anyone who is of IMO caliber but doesn’t compete should support the mentality behind admitting all IMO guys. Because anyone that talented that they look like they would have done well would get in anyway as a general math/science prospect if they just took the most accomplished/talented students. That is, Harvard/MIT/etc. would say that they look like the best prospect to make an impact in the math/science field and would take them anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Am I missing something here? The first time I read this I thought that the latter part of the sentence was a sort of joke, meaning “unless Harvard is desperate enough that they tell him they literally can’t start the year unless he attends”. Maybe there’s more info in the thread (which I’ve skimmed) but from what I can tell this guy was in fact accepted.</p>
<p>:?</p>
<p>Kelowna:</p>
<p>I really can’t say. I do believe that adcoms are not infallible. Sometimes, they blow up a minor reservation into a big thing. To give an example, my young friend who graduated from Harvard summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, with a “nearly publishable” senior thesis was turned down by HMS. I suspect that at the time he was making his application, he was encountering difficulties in his research. This may have made the rec of the prof a bit less supportive. Who knows? Of course, at the time of the application, he was not yet summa, PBK, etc…</p>
<p>Harvard is different from MIT or Caltech not because it is “anti-intellectual” and cares more about ECs than academics–it does not–but because it seeks students who can do well across academic fields rather than a single discipline. But this is sheer speculation on my part. For all I know, it was a huge mistake on the part of the Harvard adcom. </p>
<p>Regarding post 102:</p>
<p>Being an IMO medalist (or on the way to being) definitely proves talent. But there are other ways of showing math abilities. I’m not talking about MV-Calc here. In fact, a huge proportion of students taking MV-Calc at the Harvard Extension School are high school juniors and seniors. One year, it was 53 out of a class of 83. I’m talking well beyond MV-Calc as taught at Harvard and peer institutions (as distinct from Unknown Community College).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Dean of Admissions at HMS told me that they accept a couple of lab rats per year. Other than that, what they look for is someone in the range GPA-wise (which he defined as 4.6/5.0 and above) with a good MCAT score. This admission dean had gone to HMS with a 3.6/5.0 GPA (read that GPA over again LOL.) So your friend’s rejection might just mean he wasn’t the top one or 2 candidates in their mind, rather than not being one of the top 100 or so people academically. Incidentally, stories like that are what shaped my opinion of Harvard admissions in general. Being superior academically beyond a certain set threshhold is almost like having Monopoly money; they don’t care, and in fact, in their eyes your time would be more effective elsewhere than on academics.</p>
<p>As for there being talented math students who don’t have top math contest honors, you’re pretty much preaching to the choir. I just figured that, for Harvard, that these guys would be admitted as general candidates and not as their math people (i.e., they would need some kind of outstanding EC’s.)</p>
<p>For whatever reason my S was admitted to Harvard, it can’t have been for his ECs. I won’t go into details on a public forum. </p>
<p>As for my young friend, I wonder how many students who get into HMS graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard in Biology? I’m pretty sure that my friend had a stellar GPA (needed for Phi Beta Kappa) and excellent MCAT. I happened to talk to the Dean at HMS not long afterward at some reception.He was surprised that my friend had been rejected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you have this backwards. MIT and especially Caltech care more about total potential in math/science and care less about a big award in any one area. It’s just that the IMO guys have so much intellectual firepower that they are going to get in. I knew a guy who one young scientist of the year by doing a bio project and he got into Harvard; he wasn’t that great a student but he excelled in one area. He didn’t have a chance at MIT or Caltech. Generally, it is more typical for a guy who qualified for AIME and had state level awards in several academic disciplines to get into Caltech than into Harvard. The more well-rounded types do, of course, get into Harvard, but its a crapshoot for them and there may be turned down for people who aren’t as smart but who volunteered in Ecuador, etc…</p>
<p>This is based on the admissions from my own magnet school.</p>
<p>collegealum,</p>
<p>How does a Harvard student achieve over a 4.0 gpa? To my understanding there is no A+ available in courses. Wouldn’t the highest possible gpa be 4.0?</p>
<p>I think collegealum’s got it backwards.</p>
<p>collegealum314 went to MIT, which grades on a 5.0 scale. (Note denominators.) Also note: the GPA quasi-cut-off may apply to MIT students, and not in general.</p>
<p>Yeah, I should probably note that that HMS Dean who got a 3.6/5.0 GPA was a former MIT undergrad. Still, he got in over a lot of other MIT people with a better record. The interview and essays may have to do a lot with HMS admission too. Someone who emphasizes that they are excited by patient care is going to have an advantage over someone who says they enjoy ruminating biological problems. </p>
<p>Anyway, MIT’s admission has been in flux for the past 15 years or so. It may be hard to make generalizations now, although before they just wanted perfect students across the board (and especially in math/science.) </p>
<p>However, Caltech definitely wants you to be bulletproof across the board. They would probably not take a Westinghouse Finalist in bio if they had gotten a “B+” in calculus; they would never survive quantum mechanics or the rest of the core. Harvard and even MIT don’t have the same concern. The math guys tend to excel in the other subjects anyway so that’s why the top math people get into Caltech.</p>
<p>There are more disciplines than math and science. There is a reason that both Caltech and MIT have tech in their names but not Harvard. And their adcoms choose accordingly.</p>
<p>Given the number of students that Harvard admits, and given the number who initially intend to major in math, I have to think that there is room for the entire US IMO team among them + quite a few choices among those who did not participate in the USAMO, or did, but did not make the IMO team. So marite’s comment, while true, does not justify the decision, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I have a friend who worked in the Harvard admissions office many years ago, who once commented that Harvard was not trying to choose the smartest students, they were trying to choose those who would be most successful. This came as news to me, at the time! In pure mathematics, I think that the overlap between the two groups ought to be very high; and I am not sure that the people in the Harvard admissions office can judge accurately what characteristics will place a person among the most successful mathematicians. It’s hard enough for faculty hiring an Assistant Professor, in most cases!</p>
<p>So the comment makes me suspect that Harvard may have chosen a future hedge fund manager with strong people skills, the willingness to embrace risk, and whatever else that career takes, over a future professor of mathematics. . . not the choice that would be made if I ran admissions, of course, but there is no prospect of that!</p>
<p>(I note that there is some ambiguity in the original statement–I’m not entirely sure that the IMO participant was deferred or waitlisted–it might have been an issue of financial aid offers, and the attempt to get Harvard to put up more.)</p>
<p>QuantMech – </p>
<p>(1) Harvard admits plenty of future math professors. </p>
<p>(2) If you think that the categories “hedge fund manager” and “math professor” are mutually exclusive, you do not know much about hedge funds. It may not be possible to do both jobs at once, but it is very common for math professors to go into managing hedge funds, or to work as senior advisors to hedge funds managed by former colleagues or students.</p>
<p>Quantmech:</p>
<p>I have already said I think the adcom made a mistake. Several times. What else would you like me to say? I also sent you an private message. Twice.</p>
<p>My point is participating in this discussion was ONLY to suggest that there are other ways of identifying potentially superb math students than participation in USAMO/IMO. There may not be many, but they do exist.</p>
<p>marite, I don’t think that we disagree–definitely, there are first-rate mathematicians who have not participated in the IMO. In support of your previous comments, I know a student at Princeton who outperformed IMO gold-medalists in mathematics, by the time junior year rolled around. I am not surprised that this happens at Harvard, either. So I would definitely not advocate just going down the list according to performance at the camp to select IMO participants. </p>
<p>But I wasn’t sure about the point you were trying to make in post #112. Harvard should have plenty of room for the IMO participants, many other students chosen for promise in mathematics, and then 1500 or so spaces left over for students in other fields.</p>
<p>JHS, #114, I will admit to complete ignorance about hedge-fund managers. I know one Harvard student who went to work in finance, and had one former post-doc at Lehman, and one in international banking. I don’t doubt that a transition is quite possible. I’d be surprised if a mathematician at the top of his/her game in mathematics would want to divert any attention to hedge-fund issues, even as an advisor, but maybe so. Different fields have different practices–and after all, Hardy spent many afternoons at the cricket pitches (and that was not nearly as remunerative).</p>
<p>I’d also be somewhat surprised if someone moved in the opposite direction, from hedge-fund management, back into being a professor of mathematics–but again, maybe so.</p>
<p>A few things to read:</p>
<p>[James</a> Harris Simons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harris_Simons]James”>Jim Simons (mathematician) - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[Edward</a> O. Thorp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_O._Thorp]Edward”>Edward O. Thorp - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>[Robert</a> C. Merton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Merton]Robert”>Robert C. Merton - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Quantmech:</p>
<p>Okay, we don’t disagree.</p>
<p>In post 112, I was responding to post 107:
</p>
<p>My contention was that Harvard wanted someone who could excel “across the board” by which I meant not just in math and sciences–as a possible explanation for rejecting an IMO medalist. Note “possible” not even plausible or likely. </p>
<p>And I totally agree with you about admitting another math star. If we go by the number of econ concentrators (around 600?) every year, Harvard must be admitting 150 students who want to study economics. Not every one of them can possibly a stellar student, however one gauges excellence!</p>
<p>I feel illegitimate even posting here because my kids are by no means math geniuses but I can tell you my older child was accepted at Caltech with a small merit scholarship without ever stepping foot in a math competition or science lab and only completing Calc I (the slacker!) in high school. He was basically a TASPer with ridiculous test scores across the board - SATI and SATII (including math and sciences). His essay for Caltech was about the historical and political impact of pandemic disease. He had some other choices - tried but did not finish the MIT app - but it was very clear to him and us that Harvard was the best place for him. At Harvard he got off to a slow start - was very intimidated by the very angular students with outsized talents in specific areas but by early sophomore year he seemed to identify the synergistic opportunities for his particular constellation of talents.</p>
<p>I only offer this to the thread because I sense on here that there is a belief that outsized math talent trumps all. I really don’t think that at Harvard that is AlWAYS true - and perhaps not even at Caltech.</p>