<p>Hahhaha Bovertine Re: Penny!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then should those who similarly do well in physics, computer science, engineering, etc. competitions also be auto-admitted to MIT?</p>
<p>When you speak of these brilliants, Leonard, et al, is it as 17 y.o. applicants or as adults, based on cumulative accomplishments, impact, etc?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. But do we have any evidence?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I answered this question with this:
As far as a true private institution, they can do whatever they please, and they owe no one anything.</p>
<p>
Sure it would be nice if we had a say, but how realistic is that? I do feel it is incumbent upon these “private” entities to make the appropriate choices which would maximize our tax dollars.</p>
<p>
I agree with this.</p>
<p>Whose to say those kids want to learn in proximity to each other? What if one wants to pursue physics on the west coast, one wants to pursue music at a school with a renowned conservatory, one wants to study math under a specific professor that teaches at school A and another wants to study classics at school B, one wants a large university and another a smaller academic setting. </p>
<p>And again, regardles of whether a school accepts federal grant $$, that, IMO, does not compel them to accept USAMO winners.</p>
<p>Of those 10-15 students, who we have absolutely no evidence are being “missed” anyway, a few will not want to go to MIT and a few will actually not benefit from learning in close proximity with anyone. Some will benefit from this environment.</p>
<p>There are a lot of assumptions being made here, but the most important and oddly unsupported one, is that there are a stratospherically gifted set of students who are being missed by those who are trained to identify them. I’m not sure I even buy that premise.</p>
<p>If these top kids “deserve” auto-admittance to schools 1-5, does it then follow that there is another set of kids who “deserve” auto-admit into schools 6-20? If my kid gets into a top 20, he’s clearly top-20 deserving - would it be a crime against humanity if he hadn’t? Were other top 20s “obligated” to admit him?</p>
<p>On the December thread, where all this was first hashed, one issue was that not all kids participate in usamo.</p>
<p>But why the focus on math competitions as the quantifier? Not every extremely talented student participates in competitions. My son never did. He felt like math competitions were like training for a sprint and real math research was a marathon. They draw on different skills. He has no desire to complete a predetermined equation in an arbitrarily determined amount of time. He devotes days and days trying to solve problems that come up in his studies, with solutions that have an actual application.</p>
<p>If math competition scores were set as the gateway to MIT, then my son would not be admitted. And if by some chance he applied and was admitted than he would be in a freshman class full of math competition stars. They would no more be his peers than any other school he could attend.</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>Is Sheldon really all that much brighter than Leonard, or is it just his tremendous ego? And MIT doesn’t want a class of all Sheldons who can’t collaborate and communicate. He isn’t more “worthy” than Leonard.</p>
<p>
Maximize the tax dollars with respect to the specific service or product those dollars are buying. Not with respect to some other unrelated mission of the school or company.</p>
<p>When we hire a private insitution, be it a school or a company, to perform a service for us, the only say we should have is in the quality and specifications of the finisihed product. Of course, the company or school has to follow existing laws (like real non-discrimination laws, or for example, we can require security clearances for some workers). But that doesn’t mean we can micromanage how either organization chooses to staff or perform the work. Unless we explicitly put that in the contract, which is really counterproductive IMO. If the school delivers a quality study we hire them again, if not we don’t. </p>
<p>If I work for company X, and the government pays me to deliver Y widgets on schedule and meeting certain specifications, it is up to me if I want to hire my brother. As long as I deliver the parts to contract I get paid. I would be called a “private” company, regardless of the fact I’d be out of business without the gvmnt.</p>
<p>Now if I work for the FBI I can’t simply choose to promote my brother over more qualified candidates without facing some issues. Although I’m sure it happens all the time. The FBI is obviously not a private company. Nor is West Point considered a private school (at least I don’t thiink it is , I’m open to correction)…</p>
<p>The above 6 posts are spot on. My s’s got tired of the math competitions and quit after AIME and while both were on their HS math team, one tired of it and quit. Unfortunately he’s put his math skills to “good” (sarcasm detectors should be going off about now) use in poker tournaments :(</p>
<p>Boils down to what some think the mission of the tippy top schools should be. Versus what those schools think and the model that works for them. It’s been said: if they want to auto admit usamo top scorers, they can. And all the other quantitatively bright lights.</p>
<p>And so we see that even the allegedly all encompassing and objective qualifier: USAMO is not. all encompassing or objective.</p>
<p>Look, it’s not possible to never “miss” a student. But, it’s very challenging for me to believe we have a lot of over qualified students out there who are not getting the education we want them to get because they are being “missed” by those top universities, and there are many, where they are currently applying to attend.</p>
<p>Now, I do believe there are some highly gifted students who are being completely destroyed by the educational “system” in K-12, and that the parent of a GT kid does spend a certain amount of time just attempting to minimize the damage that system will do, but that is an entirely other subject, although I suspect it is the actual subject of QM’s unhappiness, if she digs a little bit deeper into the “real” issue of GT kids being “missed.”</p>
<p>BTW, when it comes to drawing the line between private and public, the issue of government loans and finaincial aid going to students for private schools is a murkier issue than the funding of research grants, which I basically consider a buisness deal. You can make the argument that the governmentr FA goes to the student, not the school, but that is a little more rocky, IMO.</p>
<p>THere is a lot of overlap between “public” and “private” anything in this country, and where you draw the line probably depends on whether your particular ox is being gored, unless there is a specific law spelling it out.</p>
<p>For some reason the focus on the exceptionally gifted few is reminding me of the stories about young girls in Russia who are forced into grueling, childhood-depriving ballet academies because of the potential they have shown at age 4 or 5. Who cares if they are also interested in STEM or music or philosophy, or they just want to be regular kids? THEY WILL DO BALLET. This whole discussion discounts the individuality of top students as well as their free choice, as jym points out. It is as if the entire world is waiting for, and dependent on, these incredibly brilliant young people to achieve their potential at MIT, and that we are all failing them (and society) if we don’t expend countless resources and energy making sure that no more “HE’s” get in at their expense. (Not to mention “our” expense, since apparently our tax dollars are paying to educate them!) It’s completely absurd and I am surprised that educated people who trade in data and facts would present such flawed thinking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t seen anyone making this assumption, perhaps I missed that post. But now that you bring it up, there are many kids who fall through the cracks. Mostly low-income, minorities and those with behavioral problems & or learning disabilities.</p>
<p>ETA: The only people who are “trained” to determine if a child is gifted are particular psychologists. Teachers can certainly spot kids who fall into the category in the traditional sense, but slide right by. Which is why Oregon’s law says the school districts should mine for this, not treat it as an exclusive club. Doesn’t happen as there are no funds attached.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the show, Sheldon is more brilliant than Leonard, Raj & of course Howard 
Is he more worthy? For what – admissions?</p>
<p>Jym – The gifted issue is not just for K-12. A student’s innate intelligence doesn’t end the minute they walk on campus. For most anyway :)</p>
<p>
No, of course the issue of giftedness doesn’t end, but the state regulations addressing their education does (except for the disabled students who can remain in some high school programs through age 21).</p>
<p>
agreed. And the continued focus on it, or that these students would want to all study together seems to feed, not dispel, that notion of the textureless math grind stereotype that makes us all cringe.</p>