<p>By the way, if “SCHWETI” makes any headway, you can be sure that Harvard will try to buy it.</p>
<p>It’s what they do.</p>
<p>I’ve read the last few pages and felt a need to throw out a couple thoughts. I know… I’m being a Brett Farvre by retiring and un-retiring, but the misses was really happy about the amount of housework done over the weekend. Besides, I couldn’t just sit idle and listen to the attack dogs suppress the thoughts of everyone here whose views might disagree with their own.</p>
<p>First, for all those who have cited examples of students realizing that competition math, chemistry, physics, linguistics, etc. was not for them, I’d ask for honesty. From what I have observed, children usually give up or grow tired of competition – whether the endeavor be chess, sports, math, etc. – when they realize that they can’t get to the next level. I guess there may have been instances where a kid takes the AMC 10 and 12, AIME, qualifies for the USAMO only to realize “hey, this competition stuff isn’t for me. I’m not going to sit for the USAMO”. Such cases, I’d submit, should be extremely rare ‘though I don’t have any data to back this up. I’d compare cases like these to be not much different than an Olympic caliber athlete saying “I qualified for the US Olympic track team, but I decided to decline because I’m not really that into competition and just enjoy running for running sake”.</p>
<p>Next, I’d be really surprised if there are students today – including those who are home-schooled - who have not been exposed to the series of Olympiad level competition in all the different areas. 20 years ago, perhaps it was possible for someone to have not heard of the IMO. Today with all the literature available on the web as well as the high school teachers with knowledge about these competitions, I just don’t believe that there exists a critical mass of students who aren’t exposed. Again, no data but this hunch is based on what I have observed at my daughter’s very mediocre high school many years ago.</p>
<p>As for the notion that you can train children to achieve at these levels, I’m just not buying it. Training a child to be a USAMO qualifier would be like training your child to play in the NBA… you need talent, and effort. Coaching can be a factor, but can only take you so far.</p>
<p>I’m of the opinion that success on these national\international competitions be given more weight than they currently are. Auto-admit, no. Given way, way, way more weight than they currently are, a resounding yes. As many of you are aware, MIT asks for your AMC and AIME score directly on their app. One would have to assume that these competition results are important to them, ‘though not nearly to the level that I’d like them to be.</p>
<p>And my last thought. I think I mentioned that one can debate the merits (pros and cons) of holistic admissions practices for the university (or even society) but that these practices really hurt many of the kids who perform better academically. I’d encourage many to read this…</p>
<p>[Tanya</a> Khovanova?s Math Blog » Blog Archive » A Hole for Jews](<a href=“Tanya Khovanova's Math Blog » Blog Archive » A Hole for Jews”>Tanya Khovanova's Math Blog » Blog Archive » A Hole for Jews)</p>
<p>And then ask yourself these 2 questions: Were the interests of Moscow State U (or the Soviet society at large) enhanced by achieving representation which closely matched the overall population? Perhaps, perhaps not… it may be debatable. Were the more deserving Jewish kids harmed in this process? Absolutely. They were in essence the collateral damage inflicted by the state\institution trying to attain some greater good. I think this point can hardly be debated, imo.</p>
<p>"Next, I’d be really surprised if there are students today – including those who are home-schooled - who have not been exposed to the series of Olympiad level competition in all the different areas. 20 years ago, perhaps it was possible for someone to have not heard of the IMO. Today with all the literature available on the web as well as the high school teachers with knowledge about these competitions "</p>
<p>There’s a poster on here whose rural hs doesn’t even have dedicated math / science teachers, offers some sciences every other year. You seriously think these teachers “know” re USAMO and so forth? I think you vastly overstate the awareness and sophistication of most teachers.</p>
<p>“As for the notion that you can train children to achieve at these levels, I’m just not buying it.”</p>
<p>I go with anyone can be trained if they had a mom who wants them to be.</p>
<p>[Gifted</a> Hands by Thomas Sowell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent](<a href=“http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/gifted-hands.html]Gifted”>http://www.creators.com/conservative/thomas-sowell/gifted-hands.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. By the time some students are 16 or 17, they may balk at competitions for a number of reasons. For some it can be the artificial nature of competitions generally, or some may switch from math to chemistry or from math to physics because they have an interest in another topic. Those who switch relatively late will most likely advance less far, but is that in any way an intellectual limitation? Also, so very many students are not exposed to these competitions. Math/science teachers don’t have the resources to engage bright students in extra curricular competitions and it may not be part of the local culture. Parents not educated or working in STEM fields usually have no idea these competitions exist, or how to engage their kid, and by the time the child shows an interest/aptitude, they are way behind what it takes to qualify for USAMO. Take a quick check of qualifiers - they typically started well before high school. For most of them, a teacher or a parent must have been engaged and helping early on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice imagery! But, you should see what happens on the full moon days when the attack dogs convert into a pack of werewolves! </p>
<p>Fwiw, have you considered that in a thread with well over 2,000 post the attack dogs would have been appeased … if it were not for the meandering repetition of the same arguments? And, have you considered that repeating the same argument over and over is just a form of trying to “suppress” the thoughts of everyone who happens to disagree with the clicking sound of your own keyboard. </p>
<p>In the end, it is just the same old discussion about what admissions should be, and about admissions missing the boat. Depending on one’s favorites, it could be that adcoms should admit more of this particular race, more of this particular SES group, more of STEM applicants, or more of … [fill the blanks.] In the meantime, schools have to make the decisions to balance a class of freshman against an endless number of institutional needs. Invariably, the result is that all accepted students are pleased, and very few (if any) or the waitlisted or rejected applicants are. </p>
<p>We do GET that some would want to have a paint-by-the-number application, but for a number of reasons, we simply do NOT agree all the while trying to continue to respect a divergent opinion – which is not always easy!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most professional mathematicians do not participate in math competitions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is true, then why do you think those from the Bay area, the DC suburbs, and Massachusetts are overrepresented among USAMO qualifiers?</p>
<p>I’d like to respond to the intelligent responses to some of the points made.</p>
<p>@pizza, you may be right about the really rural areas. My views may be skewed because I have always lived in urban centers, back in Russia and now here. But I have noticed more recently that kids from KY, Ohio and even Louisiana are representing their states quite well, not to mention all the home-schooled kids who are also doing extremely well given the availability of online resources like ArtOfProblemSolving.com and the many advanced texts now available on amazon. On this point, I can leave open the possibility that my views may be slightly skewed.</p>
<p>@texas, I think we’re in agreement that coaching and teaching can take you very far. But where we might disagree is whether coaching alone can take a child and turn him into a USAMO Winner. I don’t suppose that you would be that interested, but there’s a fascinating documentary called “Hard Problems” which chronicles these kids. As was true with my wife’s nephew, many of these kids were doing fairly complex math by age 2 and reading at ages which might be hard for the rest of us to comprehend. Certainly, environment could have played a role, but I know that there’s nothing I could have done with my own children to have them read and do math at age 2, no matter how hard I tried.</p>
<p>@ gourment, you may be right to say that there are some who just don’t like to compete. From what I have personally observed, many children who do well on say MathCounts (which is coachable) give up on math when they struggle with the proof based, Olympiad level math (less coachable). If you have observed kids who excel in competition math but just grow tired of competing, then I most certainly would not question your observations.</p>
<p>@shravas, you are mistaken that there isn’t competition for the professional academic. To the contrary, the 2 prior fields medalists were both IMOers, and in fact, all mathematicians compete against each other… to publish, solve the vast array of yet to be solved problems, compete for research grants, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I prefer not to answer that, but my comments on Chinese schools are based on personal experience. Not all students at the schools organized by Chinese parents are Chinese-American, but most are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s where many members of the cognitive elite live, and intelligence is largely inherited.</p>
<p>^ Dunno that I agree with that. There are a lot if idiots in the DC area :D</p>
<p>Comeonpeeps - there is a big difference in math education in Russia compared to the US. The level of rigor early on in Russia is far greater, expectations of parents are surely higher, and I expect there are more qualified math teachers. We fall way behind in math education, especially in the earlier grades. Likewise, access to contests is very spotty throughout the country. Enough so that it is unwise (and unfair!) to use it as the sole gauge of excellence.</p>
<p>“There are a lot of idiots in the DC area.”<br>
I resemble that remark!</p>
<p>
Does it matter if the coaching is successful though? The point was that time will be devoted to preparing for the AMC, AIME, and USAMO that otherwise would have been spent on the child’s other interests. I think that the AMC can be “coached,” the AIME is harder to coach, and the USAMO even more so. I don’t think it will be initially obvious that the USAMO can’t be coached (personally I doubt that that is true in any case), so many parents may start their students out on the AMC road regardless.</p>
<p>"But where we might disagree is whether coaching alone can take a child and turn him into a USAMO Winner. "</p>
<p>Amy Chua seems to think anyone with enough motivation can get to Carnegie Hall. I don’t see the difference here. The discussion is not about a specific winner but specific levels of scorers. It is no different than prepping for tests over several years.</p>
<p>It takes more work for some than others is the main difference. OTOH, there are many who just don’t care for it but can start paying attention if needed. I don’t underestimate the intelligence among a lot of kids to be able to do it, I just believe many of them just don’t give a darn.</p>
<p>@texas, I believe that Amy Chua is wrong on this. I have zero pitch and rather fat fingers, and I can almost guarantee you that if I were born as her son, no amount of coaching\motivating would allow me to play at Carnegie Hall.</p>
<p>But I’m with Cameral on this. Let’s say for the sake of argument that one can be coached\motivated to play at Carnegie. Should these pianists who are able to achieve this feat- among the many thousands of others who try - be punished or held in less regard for having been coached\motivated when they apply to say Juliard? I’m not as familiar with the arts, but I suspect that having played there carries immense weight, as it should. No?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, she’s wrong.</p>
<p>“That’s where many members of the cognitive elite live, and intelligence is largely inherited.”</p>
<p>What’s your proof that the cognitive elite are more concentrated in those areas than in other similarly-dense urban areas? Are you not aware that there are doctors, lawyers, upper middle class professionals in every big city? It’s surprising that you haven’t figured out that it is local school culture, versus “thicker” presence of smart parents.</p>
<p>Gee peeps, your command of the English language sure is remarkable for someone raised in the CCCP.</p>