<h1>2494 Unicameral2013 - Thanks for posting that MIT statement, which is what I would expect to see on a college admissions site. Very Nice.</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>“pounded into their heads” ? :eek:</p>
<p>PG: Is questioning authority, the status quo, societal norms, a mark of abnormality in your eyes? Is this something normal people don’t do? Is this something only arrogant people do. “arrogant” has been used a lot on this thread so I start to wonder. Is having an opinion different than the majority kind of arrogant?</p>
<p>Oh good grief. It’s a statement of the obvious that MIT knows that they will undoubtedly reject someone who will go on to do great things STEM-wise, and it’s a statement of the obvious that they know there are more than 1500 “deserving” kids but they only have 1500 beds per class.</p>
<p>Especially schools that are not need blind for intls. But some comments sure did sound exclusive. </p>
<p>Uni’s comment refers to a sub discussion some probably missed.</p>
<p>Alh, you know QM ardently questioned whether “correct” can only mean 100% absolutely the perfect group. It had to be read in context and for intention.</p>
<p>I certainly can’t speak for QM, but in the course of this discussion I have decided that admissions committees sometimes get it wrong, sometimes really really wrong. I don’t mean that to be insulting to you, LF. Individuals are fallible, right?</p>
<p>Admissions policies have changed over the years: women, minorities, etc. I guess we think admissions policies used to be really really wrong. If no one had ever questioned admissions, what would universities look like today? Was questioning those policies arrogant? The mark of someone not that bright?</p>
<p>I would expect all universities to issue the sort of statement that unicameral quotes, with positive statements about applicants, instead of statements which are negative about applicants. I am not going to go back and dig up MIT’s negative comments because, frankly, they make me feel a little sick…</p>
<p>Thanks for locating that MIT item, unicameral 2013. Think of it: There is a 100% chance that <em>one</em> student that MIT did not take will do something “impactful” in a STEM field. “It could be you.”</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I am not reading this literally, but I am reading it closely, to discern the intent behind it (as if the author of the statement were revealing something about his/her way of thinking that he/she did not intend to reveal). </p>
<p>I think there has been a tiny crack in MIT’s dike, and they are now admitting that <em>one</em> student they didn’t take has a 100% chance to do something significant in a STEM field.</p>
<p>Well, I’m ready to declare victory and go home!</p>
<p>We are all fallible. The difference is sometimes in how one might persist based on assumptions. You know I tell my kids to watch out for, “I think it, so it must be true.”</p>
<p>QM - wow. Thanks for pointing that out. I am not a very close reader :(</p>
<p>Before we all go home, I just wanted to say that although the thread mainly wasn’t really about MIT for me… I have learned so much about MIT that I will probably have a conniption fit if any of the grandbabies wants to apply.</p>
<p>adding:
PG - how about we bump up the sweatsuit thread? :)</p>
<p>I think this must be the Lazarus thread. Just in time for the Easter season.</p>
<p>I will note one interesting thing. QM estimates there are maybe 10 people a year that MIT should have obviously admitted but they didn’t. I believe she knows at least one of them. What’s interesting to me is that there are also at least three or four parents of such applicants posting to this thread. I know that represents a few years, but what are the chances of that? </p>
<p>In keeping with the spirit of the thread, I will only accept answers from USAMO qualifiers. :)</p>
<p>My snowflake was not a USAMO qualifier, and thus not within QM’s group of proposed auto-admits. So I am not arguing self-interest in supporting that idea of auto-admits.</p>
<p>unless one assumes it to be enlightened self-interest (like poetgrl and her international super snowflakes who should be allowed/encouraged to stay in the US)</p>
<p>I didn’t put my kid in the should be auto admitted pile. I thought he had a decent chance. He got deferred from EA to regular admissions. At MIT that year they took 25% of those students. He wasn’t one of them. I think my kid would probably be exactly where he is now if he’d gone to MIT, neither more or less accomplished. It would have been a shorter drive for us to deliver him though! OTOH I know Boston well, and instead we got a chance to get to know Pittsburgh a little, which I really enjoyed.</p>
<p>I like this thread - it keeps going off on tangents and then circling back, though I think we answered the OP’s question long long ago! I’ve never been a stickler for staying on topic or declaring threads ready to be closed because the subject is exhausted. No one is making anyone participate.</p>
<p>I have just had a chance to look at the two documentaries about participants in the International Mathematics Olympiad, one from the U.S. (Hard Problems) and the other from Britain (Beautiful Young Minds). I hope that other posters will be willing to revive this thread to continue the discussion of those films and very high level mathematical talent.</p>
<p>The first thing that really struck me was the difference in tone between the two documentaries. The film about the U.S. team was sponsored by the Mathematical Association of America, and it is clearly intended to promote interest in the contests. The British film was produced more as a work of cinematography, I think, with a less sympathetic approach to the students.</p>
<p>I thought that neither film offered enough examples of the actual problems for the viewers to get a feel for how difficult the problems really are.</p>
<p>One element of the American film that surprised me was the relative wealth of many of the team members’ families. I did not expect that. One element that I thought was rather misleading in the American film was the taping of the USAMO at the Harker School and Phillips Exeter. In most high schools, a film of the USAMO being taken would show an empty room for decades at a time–then perhaps a single student–then an empty room again. This really drives home the inequality of access to challenging pre-college mathematics. The Art of Problem Solving web site, books, and courses is helping to open access to this level of mathematics much more broadly geographically. I have no affiliation with them, but I do recommend them.</p>
<p>QM - I dont follow USxMOs mainly since my kids dont seem to care to compete in anything. Last week was the first time I have ever looked at for a list of winners and it is quite revealing. Based on the list, it seems like students of Harker (or the likes) or Phillips Exeter are the ones winning it which means Joe Slow from Podunk High in plattsville, Alaska has almost no chance of being prepared, let alone win despite an IQ of 150 or whatever it takes.</p>
<p>Then turning to the British film. To sum up my opinion on it: Gee, thanks, Mr. Cinematographer! That’s certainly going to promote interest in maths in the U.K.!</p>
<p>I disliked multiple elements of this film. For example, did the camera man really focus directly on the students at the moment when they received the emails letting them know whether they could continue in the competition or not? And what was the point in lingering on them? Why were some students shown mainly in profile? Why did they set up the shot with one of the competitor’s mother sorting spools of thread at the kitchen table? (I would put this one in the Annals of Awfully Manipulative Cinematography.) One of the students recommended a set of books to another, but I didn’t catch the name of the author; was it included in the film? (I’m not sure, and it does make a difference in my feeling about that section.) One student was shown presenting an incorrect solution to a problem. Did no one else present a solution that was in error, during that entire stage of the selection process? Did no one actually locate and explain the error? And wouldn’t students normally be more cautious about expressing opinions about other students in the presence of an adult film-maker, and on tape–when the work could be expected to wind up on the BBC? (Maybe not, but I’d hope so.) On top of that, the title was prejudicial from the get-go.</p>
<p>There is a difference between the American selection/training process and the British selection/training process that I found quite interesting: in the U.S., 12 students are named as USAMO winners, and the 6 team members are drawn from that group at the summer camp. In Britain, only 8 are invited to the final training session, and the 6 team members and 2 alternates come from that group. I prefer the U.S. approach.</p>
<p>And 2517 & 2518 make the case for auto-admits how?</p>
<p>To me they make the case against auto-admits and, in addition, they highlight the challenge in finding the math (and other subject) prodigies who are hidden among the 30,000+ high schools in the US. Personally, I would find a discussion of how to find these kids very interesting.</p>