<p>
</p>
<p>Negative. Public HS in California. The typical number of AP’s is ~6/7 for top students by graduation, bcos that is all that they can take. Of course, the majority of scores don’t arrive until summer after graduation. Also, the HS is rather competitive (or test happy) since ~5% earn NM honors annually. Which of course raises an obvious point: if MIT did start accepting ~100% of USAMO top-scorers, students desiring MIT would do nothing but study/practice for THAT program.</p>
<p>I went back to locate epiphany’s question, which was:</p>
<p>Does the student, and that student’s support structure, not have a moral and practical obligation to develop such talent? </p>
<p>(At least, I think this is the question in question.)</p>
<p>Of course the student ought to develop her/his pre-existing talent, and work hard to grow in other areas as well, with whatever support the support structures are capable of providing. Part of that development would involve going to a university that offers the right level of challenge for the student, in an environment where the student can be comfortable enough to focus on the academic work (and to contribute to the community), though she/he need not be totally at ease.</p>
<p>For some strong students, a large public research university (LPRU) is a great choice. I count myself among them, at 18. The university that I attended offers something like 6000 different courses, as well as the opportunity to craft a curriculum that has challenges at the right levels–somewhat varied–in different areas. </p>
<p>Yet I can conceive of a student whose combination of talent and pre-college preparation might not actually make my LPRU the right type of choice. Pre-agreed, the set of such students is probably quite a bit smaller than the set of those on CC who think they are such students (or whose parents think so), but the set does not contain zero students. </p>
<p>In terms of the support structures helping the student to develop her/his talents: There are quite a few areas where I would be hard-pressed to help a student develop very effectively by the time the student was ready to enter college: French literature. Latin-American history. For that matter, civil engineering. The only real help I could provide would be monetary. But I could try to point the student toward the colleges where she/he would be best served.</p>
<p>“And, I would guess that USAMO participation is highly wealth dependent. Few poor folks and URMs even participate?”</p>
<p>Of course USAMO is highly wealth dependent. As are AP courses. Your suggestion, sm74, privileges upper middle class suburban kids over poorer and / or more rural ones. I get the sense that doesn’t much matter to some, though. </p>
<p>Really, this whole thread is about how certain contests that upper middle class suburban kids participate in aren’t valued enough.</p>
<p>I think epiphany was also trying to ask if our hypothetical genius’ support system had any moral obligation to teach our little genius that there are a lot of excellent colleges out there, and to inculcate the winning attitude that one can do great things at any number of places, versus the loser attitude that these things can only be accomplished at HYPSM, who “owe” you admittance.</p>
<p>Honestly, sm74, did it just not occur to you that the vast majority of high school students don’t have access to a dozen APs?</p>
<p>
At least that’s where it’s ending up. In this case, it started out to be about something Shelby Steele wrote, that was at least tangentially related to this current discussion. </p>
<p>But it doesn’t always matter where a thread starts. I think all (or most) roads seem to lead to Rome around here, with Rome being a few favorite topics. No matter where a thread starts, there’s a fifty percent chance it will end up in some debate about one or more unfair aspects of admissions. And you’ll generally find me in a chariot somewhere in the traffic.</p>
<p>Whoa!!!</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, #1464, oh, if that was epiphany’s question, I misunderstood it.</p>
<p>Clearly, I don’t think that qualifying for the USAMO should be required for admission to HYPSM as a mathematician (nor to Caltech). The level of preparation that the schools can offer for contest math of this sort is rather uneven. </p>
<p>The Mathematical Association of America has recognized this, and offers workshops on the AIME for high school teachers, to help their students to do well on the AIME, and thereby qualify for the USAMO. And even to take advantage of this, the teacher has to be able to attend the conference workshop, or else purchase the materials from it–which some school districts cannot afford. From studying the geographical distribution of qualifiers, the people at the MAA seem to have concluded that a talented student is likely to be able to qualify for the AIME on her/his own–of course, that’s if the AMC is offered by the school at all–but that some extra help of some type is needed to reach the USAMO level. Typically, this just comes in the form of challenging problems that are assigned as part of the regular math curriculum–so the students don’t even know that they are receiving anything special.</p>
<p>On the other hand: wealth will not buy AIME points. There are many students who have identical background preparation to the USAMO qualifiers, but don’t qualify for it. In my opinion, it is a sign of some serious [developed] intellectual capability that should not be taken lightly, by people who are unfamiliar with it.</p>
<p>For an interested student whose school district doesn’t offer much in terms of math enrichment: I recommend The Art of Problem Solving, a math website that offers a lot of online courses, books, questions to answer, a math game, and “math jams.” (I am not affiliated with them.) The questions to answer are free, and come with explanations. The math game is also free, as are the math jams. The books are reasonably priced. The instructional videos are free, I am pretty sure. The online courses can be somewhat pricey, though–don’t know if they have scholarships available or not.</p>
<p>pg: I agree that math competitions and AP courses privilege only a few and that they are elitist. So does special programming for the gifted in elementary and high schools. It inevitably takes resources away from the mainstream. But I am guessing most parents on this board support gifted education paid for, at least in part, by the tax dollars of those whose children won’t be able to take advantage of the program and those who don’t even have children. For some reason we have decided that it is important to provide some students educational opportunities appropriate to their abilities. Why we don’t provide the same basic public education to students at different socioeconomic levels is another discussion, but it also has to do with entitlement and elitism imho. At what point does the elitism bother you? When a third grader is identified as gifted? When a child is USAMO or AP Scholar? Or when an adult is one of those who does academics that are possibly only interesting to other academics? When you talk about elitism are you not just talking about the degree of elitism you find acceptable?</p>
<p>Great post alh!
Yes, to even be able to discuss elitism the way we can is elitist… If you want to be truly honest about elitism.</p>
<p>Having talent can even be considered “advantaged”, while we are at it.</p>
<p>Personally, the discussion about “merit” falls on the sword here.
The top colleges want excellent students, excellent citizens, and somehow have to select them. That is “preferential” treatment, per school. Yes, there are lots of great schools, blah blah blah.</p>
<p>But it IS important to remember that seeking to be identified as excellent, seeking to BE excellent requires a certain amount of acceptance of some things being “superior” or valued more, by society, by corporations, by voters, by AdComms.</p>
<p>Having different opportunities to discover and develop these qualities does bother us. Wanting it to be a level playing field is a deep desire for many.</p>
<p>How does one reconcile the need to have excellence and the need to handicap those with fewer opportunities?
How purely objective should “merit” be?
Is competition the best way to find the excellent?</p>
<p>The ultimate irony about elitism being that first, the admission to, then then the education at a tippy top becomes a big emblem of being excellent, a member of the elite.
I am all in favor of trying to pull open the curtains on all this, including ourselves, so that we understand what is really happening here.</p>
<p>I really don’t want to detail this thread. 
sorry about that.</p>
<p>Is it possible that since some of us now do seem to be convinced “c” is not empty, we could talk about why that is the case? Quantmech, do you think you understand what is happening? I am really interested to hear your explanation, if you have one. I hope I’m not jumping too far ahead in the discussion??</p>
<p>I have an idea that may be really ridiculous but don’t have time to write it out at least somewhat intelligibly till later on in the week.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I graduated with 6 USAMO qualifiers. I don’t think you would describe any of them as upper middle class. A lot of the schools they got into, they couldn’t afford, so they took merit money elsewhere. Of course once you get to lower middle class and lower class, just about any measure of ability is going to be wealth related.</p>
<p>And btw, just for reference, the average SAT score for my high school was ~1390, and only 3 % of those people made USAMO. Any way you slice it, it’s hard to say that there are 1500 people per year with more math/science potential than the 100 USAMO qualifiers graduating per year.</p>
<p>I think Pizzagirl’s contribution that this thread is all about entitlement for the upper middle class is purposefully misleading. </p>
<p>Frankly, I think the people who are less savvy about admissions, middle class people whose parents didn’t go to elite schools, won’t know about the type of ECs that ivies like to see (organizing fundraisers, community service in other countries.) And what they imagine for a place like MIT is that you would have top grades and scores plus math/science awards. I’ve seen flying a plane as something described by people associated with MIT admissions as a good EC; how is flying a plane as a high school student less related to wealth than math contests?</p>
<p>The main point here is not about USAMO; its that it makes sense that MIT should admit people based on academic prowess. Maybe some people of the hippie generation can’t process the word “should.”</p>
<p>I think it’s also of note that many, many, MANY students will get to the app process (or get on CC 
) without having ever heard of the AMC. Until I came on CC, I wasn’t even aware there were olympiads like this. My school and many others in the area simply don’t offer it. If I wanted to actually take it I would need to go to my principal with the necessary forms and ask for funding (The AMC is not free). At a public school, funds are often at a minimum to begin with. The point of this being that AMC and the other qualifiers are not universally available, and it’s ridiculous for a school like MIT to decide that obviously whoever hasn’t taken the AMC and made it to USAMO is a complete dummy unworthy of an elite education. </p>
<p>[/rant]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If MIT only admitted USAMO winners, then they would have a class of only 100 people. So obviously I don’t mean that only USAMO winners should be admitted. I mean just what I said that the 100 USAMO qualifiers per year are definitely in the top 1500 in the country in terms of math/science potential.</p>
<p>If the culture doesn’t admire USAMO winners, then they’re not going to admire the run-of-the-mill valedictorian with high scores who has great recs and a string of A+s in their classes. The way things are now, you can get into MIT early action with several B’s in math and science. The people who are most hurt by this are the people who aced all their classes but don’t have the national awards on their resume’.</p>
<p>My posts were not a de-railment!</p>
<p>How do we as a society encourage the development of excellence in {Math?}
Are opportunities for such ubiquitous?
What is a college AdComm to do?
What is the purpose of a given college’s education? to develop talent, to educate, to take the most talented to the highest level…???</p>
<p>We are talking about excellence here, and talent. That “should” be okay and not labelled elitist. Thus, things like selectivity and competition and comparing would seem to be necessary. And useful to individuals, educational institutions and society.</p>
<p>The playing field is far from level in terms of talent AND previous opportunity. That is the way it is, today, at least. How many who could benefit from a tippy top college education are missing out? Yet, how many spots at tippy tops are left unfilled?</p>
<p>To me, the best scenario is to deepen the quality of education: the ideal would be for all the colleges out there to be able to provide a great stretching and deepening experience for the students who are there, for whatever reason.
It is quite possible that the trends in admissions these days are causing just that: amazing kids in many many colleges developing talents for their own good and that of society.</p>
<p>Many, many, many of the qualifiers that are thrown about here on CC are not universally available or even known by many well educated parents who live outside the North Eastern states. The more I read here, the less highly I think of the elite “holistic” admission process. It seems to have become an everchanging labrynthian maze of hoops, false doors, walls, and teeny tiny windows known only to a small, select group of people. </p>
<p>The day (today) that I read “that flying a plane is something described by people associated with MIT admissions as a good EC…” is the day that I throw up my hands in surrender. I don’t get it, and I believe it shouldn’t be this darned hard to figure out, and it surely shouldn’t require EC’s like those mentioned here.</p>
<p>I’m very thankful that I only have one more kidlet to usher into college, and that she is not Ivy material, so I can read these threads without the anxiety I would if she were brilliant but maybe “boring” in her interests.</p>
<p>lol performersmom - okay I’ll follow you a little ways down the track - is it possible the parents of super achievers could change the whole discussion by forbidding their offspring to attend anything other than — a state funded university -a LPRU? How many years would it take to change the way we think about higher education in this country?</p>
<p>I can’t travel any longer with you just at the moment cause I have to leave the computer for some real life stuff :)</p>
<p>roflol about this particular thread being derailed :):)</p>
<p>Hey, tons of great applicants do not get into the tippy tops. They go elsewhere. Hope they get a great education there!
That is what is happening now. It can be a great thing for society and the educational system.
The Math issue is a sub-set, as discussion here moved that way. Can a highly talented but not necessarily “'awarded” Math student get a fabulous Math education at colleges beyond the tippy tops? The top 25? etc.
My answer is that I HOPE SO. It is a great goal!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source, please? Not trying to be picky, but the top math students that I know don’t participate in USAMO. Instead, they take advanced math classes at the “local” UC. How do you know that a USAMO qualifier has more “potential” than someone who self-studies Calc over the summer after 8th grade so s/he can take Honors Multi-variate Calc (as a HS Frosh) and Honors Linear Algebra (HS Soph) at UCLA? (Said student did not apply to MIT, but turned down several Ivies to accept a full ride to Caltech.)</p>