<p>shravas, it would only be 10% more students if MIT is currently admitting no hyper-talented mathematicians. As critical as I am of their philosophy, even I don’t believe that.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting on that issue, unicameral2013–you raised a significant question. I understand your differentiation of math study from swimming. It still seems to me that if a family has a very bright student who is also gifted with neutral buoyancy, swimming would be a great choice of EC for Stanford. </p>
<p>The “tiger mom” level of pressure is uncommon where I live, so I don’t have a good handle on how common it is overall.</p>
<p>
We definitely agree on that!</p>
<p>JunMa13, I don’t think the two cases are really parallel. There are more than 37,000 high school valedictorians in the US each year, and fewer than 200 students who qualify for the USAMO prior to senior year in high school. Then, there are fewer than that who reach any given point threshold; there are lots of scores of 0 on the USAMO. It consists of 6 proofs to be done, with 9 hours allowed for the exam.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes admissions officer confident in their ability to determine <em>why</em> someone participated in math or science contests – other than lack of feedback about the accuracy of their hunches?</p>
<p>Do you have some affiliation with the USAMO, quant mech?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In most of the world, the idea that swimming ability would affect one’s ability to get in to the most prestigious academic institutions would be considered strange. I do hope that online education takes off, so that higher education can be unbundled. Anyone would be able to take a Stanford computer science class and take a proctored exam at the end. Some employers would value the Stanford residential experience, but maybe others (like me if started a company) would valuing high grades in the Stanford computer science curriculum.</p>
<p>No, jym626, none. I am just impressed by the abilities of a student who can score any significant number of points on the USAMO.</p>
<p>To reach the USAMO, a student needs to take the AMC12 (or AMC10) to qualify for the AIME. The AMC12 is a five-foil multiple choice test (maybe four-foil, I forget), but harder than anything the College Board offers. The AIME is a 15 question test, which is probably technically multiple-choice, since the answer to each question is an integer between 0 and 999 (so there is little chance of lucky guessing). A combination of scores on the AMC and AIME is used to select the USAMO participants (a comparatively small number). </p>
<p>For students whose schools do not offer the AMC, there is an alternate route to the USAMO, through the USAMTS. I believe it is run by the NSA. The USAMTS consists of sets of proof-type problems, which students have a month to solve. The proofs are read and scored by mathematicians. I believe that there are six sets in a year.</p>
<p>For anyone who is really interested in this, I recommend the Art of Problem Solving forum. (I am not connected with them in any way, either.) It is helping to broaden the group of students who have access to the types of challenging problems that prepare one for these contests.</p>
<p>Some gifted mathematicians just do not like contest math! I understand that clearly. Also, I believe that some of the mathematicians at Princeton gave Melanie Wood (the first woman on the U.S. International Mathematical Olympiad team) a hard time when she started in the Ph.D. program there, because they claimed that people who were successful at contest math were usually not as successful in research. Happily, in her case, this statement turned out to be false.</p>
<p>
Is the Pope Catholic?</p>
<p>The USAMO is but ONE data point in a college application. Sure it shows expertise in math skills, but it is ONE DATA POINT. It should not be sufficient for an “auto-admit” (a concept I think is inappropriate and one-dimensional, especially at a private school). Can we move on from this notion already?</p>
<p>Many here are quite familiar with, and its been discussed above anyway, the trajectory to the USAMO. In fact there used to be a poster from the Art of Problem Solving who posted here. But SO WHAT?? Why the obsession with a math skill?? (Rhetorical question- no need to respond).</p>
<p>Many have already said their kids (mine included) tired of the math competitions and quit them. This does not mean they dont have the skill. They just chose not to continue with math competitions. The obsession with the USAMO is getting tiresome.</p>
<p>Sorry, jym626, all I have to offer are obsessions!</p>
<p>The reason that I don’t think that students would actually be forced to focus on the USAMO with high levels of pressure is that I suspect that a lot of students really cannot solve problems at that level by the time they are 16. If they continue to work, they can solve them later.</p>
<p>But I think that even the most tiger-ish of moms (or dads) doesn’t try to push in a direction that shows no chance of success.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not entirely sure what this means. Most people I know that were successful at math contests started studying for them when they were in 7th or 8th grade. I have a friend who started getting tutored for math contests when he was 8 or 9 years old. It’s not as if the people that qualify for USAMO have never done a math contest before.</p>
<p>I also do not understand your last post, QM. </p>
<p>Kids who demonstrate a proficiency in math at an early age may be encouraged to continue to participate in things like Math Counts, Math teams, the math competitions/tests, but again, so what. As someone said pages ago, why push them to do something (ie gymnastics, skating, etc) just because they have an aptitude, if they don’t want to pursue it? Many kids show abilities in sports, and make great sacrifices to pursue them, but are never quite at the top competitive level. That said, they are still very good at it. Ditto for math (or languages, or science, or writing, or what have you.) Frankly, I agree, the preoccupation with the USAMO does seem like an obsession (and apologies if my posts/questions feed the obsession-- that would be unfortunate and unhealthy). Just because some students demonstrate a proficiency in this area does not mean they should, IMO, be an “auto-admit” anywhere.</p>
<p>The question is : which kids would MIT move aside to make room for math contest winners? QM thinks there is a bottom pool of MIT kids, but it’s not certain that her feedback is enough to go on. She admits she doesn’t know what their admissions process is truly like- so how would she pick those to replace? And in light of the school’s many needs/goals/programs?</p>
<p>As for just finding space, where? Isn’t the school already dealing with housing issues?</p>
<p>Next, as noted, what about winners of other contests? This can’t just be about math. And then, how do they control all this, so it doesn’t overwhelm the process, color a larger and expanding percent of admitted kids.</p>
<p>These are questions we expect a rational approach to consider from the start. That discussion, imo, would have been contained. Not led to bandying about, applying formulas and trying to sell because, from one defined perspective, they sound fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And impressed we should all be. However, if the achievement might be quite obsure to laymen, it should be quite known and … amply rewarded in admissions throughout the country. Again, the real question to answer should about the few who might do rather poorly in admissions after reaching a high level of proficiency in their “sector.”</p>
<p>And then, we could compare that similarly impressive achievements. We have over 30,000 valedictorians. Countless number of athletes that are considered “pre-olympic” level. We have thousands of musicians who are “first” something. And then you can add dozens of other highly competitive “hobbies” that range from the obscure to the very-well known. </p>
<p>The issue, as always, seems to be about identify a roadmap that works and hit the pavement with vengeance. As usual, applicants react to the the elusive mentions of success. If yesterday was all about displaying solitary achievements, especially the ones that could be bought a la attending years of Suzuki classes, today it has become a bit more complicated as the “holistic” approach rewards different applicants for different aptitudes.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that there will never be a perfect system. Applicants in Texas that fall outside the auto-admissions by a fraction of a percentage hate the system; the ones who barely made it applaud it. All the while the students who are in the 1-3 percent range and well above the “limit” are mostlly oblivious to the discussions as they have plenty of other choices. </p>
<p>And plenty of other choices than their “dream” school is what the people who are USAMO stars should have, and this without an auto-admit.</p>
<p>And, since Tiger Mom, in the public eye, refers to a stereotype of Asian parenting, I wonder if we can omit the term.</p>
<p>I could see if we had some national, public STEM-focused university–we could call it the National Institute of Science, Math, Engineering and Technology, or NISMET–admission based on one NISMET-administered test such as USAMO could be justified. But as long as we are talking about private institutions, no. Really, can we be done with this “obsession”? We keep going over the same ground.</p>
<p>Do not give any ideas to the IB organization! :)</p>
<p>That is an excellent idea, sally, and admission could be based on a single, high stakes entrance exam. Many students would start preparing for by the third or fourth grade. I wonder what the class composition would look like? Quite homogenous, I would imagine. There is probably a place in our society for such a university, although it would certainly not be attractive to everyone. But for those who seek as close as possible to pure merit-based admission, and the resulting culture it would create, it sounds an ideal university.</p>
<p>I’m envisioning cinder block bunkers- all learning, all the time. STEM monasteries. All because some high scoring 17 yo’s, some uber brilliants, may one day benefit society through their STEM achievements.</p>