<p>The 10-15 students in the group that I recommend as auto-admits (if they are of good character) is a subset of the extraordinarily gifted. In my personal opinion, there are perhaps 100-150 <em>extraordinarily</em> gifted students per year. (This is fewer than the number that Harvard expects to rank among the leading scholars of their generation.) Not all are interested in STEM subjects. Of those who are, not all attend schools where the first step to the USAMO is offered. Even if the math competitions are offered, not all really bright students like contest math.</p>
<p>I think “very highly gifted” is a technical term. “Extraordinarily gifted” isn’t.</p>
<p>There is no universally agreed on definition for gifted. All the feds say is those who perform or show promise of performing at high levels in any one of five categories.
No mandates to id these kids; not all states have a definition. So, to some extent, it’s subjective. Yeah.</p>
<p>So the five categories are general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, and/or visual or performing arts.
You can see how a quantitative measure works for some more than others.</p>
<p>I’m with you on this eastcoast. I don’t think we can lump all our smart\gifted\outlier HS seniors into a single bucket and expect to have a meaningful discussion on these topics. I don’t know the technical definition of what it means to be gifted in STEM - or if any even exists - but I would say that the needs of say the kids recognized below …</p>
<p>will undoubtedly be different from your smart neighborhood kid who may have skipped a grade. I guess it’s like an onion… many, many layers. I know a little bit about the extremely gifted only because my nephew is insanely gifted (top handful). I can say with absolute certainty that he and his friends who run in the same circle would be best served learning at an institution with others like him. As for the one poster who commented that his\her own son who was an outlier who went to a state college only to find out that his needs are best met by graduate school level instruction… I’m not so sure if this supports or takes away from the point being made.</p>
<p>Sometimes it seems that if you ask someone what time it is, they tell you how to build a clock. Simple straightforward answers are typically easier to read and follow than long or multiple rambling stream of consciousness responses/explanations or what sometimes come across as condescending posts that talk down to the reader as if they don’t understand simple concepts. </p>
<p>That said, some abbreviations are unclear. Was not initially clear that the Gifted and Talented acronyms were just that. As for free and appropriate education, at the present this applies in the public primary and secondary schools (not postsecondary colleges and/or universities) under Section 504/IDEA for students with disabilities. It does not unfortunately guarantee gifted and talented services for students that meet that criteria. Individual states have educational acts for this end of the exceptional (gifted) child spectrum (at the upper end of the bell curve), but to my knowledge, at the current time there is no federal mandate. <a href=“http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=532[/url]”>http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=532</a> The national white house petition died on the vine as it failed to get the necessary electronic signatures. Here is a place to get involved at the legislative level, for those interested <a href=“http://www.nagc.org/legislativeupdate.aspx[/url]”>http://www.nagc.org/legislativeupdate.aspx</a></p>
<p>Now back to the issue of “auto admit”. What I think comes across as irksome to some of the posters is the notion that schools like MIT should/must accept these students just because they have the talented faculty, resources and peers to educate them. The implication is that other schools do not, and that simply isn’t so.</p>
<p>I should have specified that I am only talking about Americans estimating the numbers.</p>
<p>jym626, I don’t know whether you mean me or not with your complaints about posts. If you do, would you please PM me with a few specific illustrations? I will try to avoid whatever it is, in the future.</p>
<p>Is there any data that these 10-15, most of whom would be taking college classes in math already, anyway, IME, are NOT being automatically admitted to CalTech or MIT, anyway?</p>
<p>Or is this purely anectdotal “evidence” based on the kid in the neighborhood? I mean, why would we assume that MIT is “missing” these kids?</p>
<p>In the past, students who were rejected have posted about USAMO qualification and scores on the MIT forum. They might be making it up, of course. One made unkind remarks re affirmative action, and I do not support admission of that student–but that was just one student.</p>
<p>And it’s easy, too easy, to minimize or focus on an anecdote.
If the country can’t agree on who’s gifted, what says any one poster knows better? Or even some consensus on CC?</p>
<p>Not that it really means anything, but Linus Pauling and John Bardeen both attended state schools for undergrad. They each earned a pair of Nobels. I know that was a while back of course.</p>
<p>Some of you have been asking about the level of giftedness one would expect to be given extra consideration. I’m referring to the Sheldon Coopers of the world, not the Leonard Hoffstetters. </p>
<p>In Oregon, services are given to the top 3% of the population. One must have either a minimum score of 129 on an IQ test, place in the top 97% on state testing, or show consistent work in the 97th percentile.</p>
<p>In Washington state it is the top 2%. Profoundly gifted is the term given to those who are in the 1%. Sheldon Cooper would be at the tippy top of the 1%. Leonard would most likely be a 2%. </p>
<p>The Davidson Institute, which advocates for gifted edcuation and educates the 1% may have more accurate numbers.</p>
<p>99- Again your information is relevant for primary and secondary education, not postsecondary education.</p>
<p>In my state, there was in the past a belief that there was an inequality amongst students whose parents could afford to get private testing done to see if they would qualify for the GT programs, and that this discriminated against those who might be otherwise gifted in other capacities. This led to the broadening of the definition of giftedness, to include exceptionally high intellectual and/or creative abilities, commensurate with the 5 categories described earlier. </p>
<p>But I digress. IMO, MIT is but one of several top schools who can adequately educate and offer opportunitities for the exceptionally talented kids. But, and this is what bothers me, is that there are other talents besides math/engineering (and this comes from the parent of kids gifted in math who are both STEM grads) and that regardless of the exceptional talent in math or what have you, no school, MIT, Harvard, Cal Tech, Harvey Mudd or the Conservatories for the GT musicians, should be compelled to admit any of them.</p>
<p>If the student singled out a URM on this forum as undeserving of admission, that is mean-spirited. But are you saying that opposition to affirmative action in general is reason not to admit someone? That would constitute a political litmus test.</p>
<p>Just in case it isn’t clear to those who aren’t familiar with the USAMO qualification process, about 270 high schoolers that qualify for the USAMO each year. Previously, there were up to 500 qualifiers. Which is very impressive, but there’s only room for about 4,000 undergraduates at MIT, and not all of them are math majors.</p>
<p>Not even the majority of USAMO qualifiers I have known become math majors. The can also go into physics, economics, computer science, engineering, philosophy, even music.</p>
<p>@shravas, I believe half - or perhaps even a bit less - out of the 250 to 270 of the USAMO qualifiers are college bound seniors. If we peg this count at 125 college bound seniors, you are literally talking about the top 2/3 in their respective state. And because being insanely gifted in math often means that you are gifted in other areas (music, chemistry, physics, language, etc.), if would be erroneous for one to assume that all these kids are going to become mathematicians, or even major in math. Many of my nephew’s friends, for example, were concert level pianists.</p>