<p>Two activities in which S1 in HS participated were FREE.</p>
<p>USACO – US Computer Science Olympiad – in addition to a series of competitions throughout the year that aids in the selection of those who get invited to the national finals, there is an entire FREE curriculum online that teaches high-level algorithmic programming. One can also do the competitions just for grins. S started doing USACO problems the summer after 8th grade (a teacher suggested he check it out) and continued all through HS. The competitions are at three different levels depending on experience, plus a school-based model, and folks who do well move up quickly. S became a math major to better support the level of thinking and to get the necessary tools required for these problems.</p>
<p>USAMTS – this was also totally free and online. Did not require school sponsorship. It was heavily proof-based, which S liked.</p>
<p>S never got to USAMO. Didn’t care for those kinds of math competitions.</p>
<p>I know these activities are free - but AWARENESS of these activities is still fairly limited to a small subset of math teachers in this country, the vast majority of whom are either in private schools or the most affluent publics. The teachers who are suggesting that their students “check it out” - I think you are overestimating what % of hs teachers in this country even know that these contests, competitions, etc. even exist. So I think that MIT “gets” that when you’ve got X number of winners from the same high school in the Silicon Valley area and no winners from a school in, say, Kansas, that it says <em>nothing</em> about raw talent and says everything about the differing socioeconomic and cultural expectations in these areas. So, then, why would MIT want to “reward” winning these competitions with automatic admissions, as was suggested upthread? So they can reward kids for being born to math/science parents, for living in Silicon Valley, for being from cultures where such contests have a high degree of emphasis, and overlook the raw talent from Kansas who just never had a math teacher aware of these things? So they do the common sense thing - they take some, but it’s not an auto admit, and save room for our bright kid from Kansas. Of course, that’s not good enough for some.</p>
<p>The SAT is ‘free’ as well, or at least CB provides fee waivers to low income students. But that still does not negate that fact that SAT scores are directly proportional to income. I was guessing that high scores of USMAO qualifiers would also be correlated with income (as are Intel/Siemens finalists).</p>
<p>I lost a couple of important words. I meant,“You wouldn’t know whether a USAMO qualifier was academically superior than every random student out there with otherwise great qualifications (acing college math classes at UCLA.)” </p>
<p>I’m just saying that they’re in the top 1500. That’s a conservative estimate.</p>
<p>Back to limabeans01, post #1499, I am pretty sure collegealum was referring to the top 5% of the MIT students, not the top 5% of the country, nor even the top 5% of the engineering students in the country. He was not calling all 1000+ of the MIT students “top.” </p>
<p>Also, it’s different to say that the top engineering students at Stanford, Caltech, Berkeley . . . can compete with the top students at MIT vs. to say that they are “head and shoulders” above them.</p>
<p>I have written repeatedly that doing well on the USAMO should be regarded as a strong indicator that a student has developed the understanding to do well in math at a truly demanding college. I have never said that it should be required for admission, on this thread nor anywhere else. The USAMO group is small and rare. Admitting these students would leave plenty of room for the talented prospective mathematician who has never heard of any of the contests.</p>
<p>Like, I get that it sucks that all these people you bring up over and over again got rejected from MIT. But MIT has way too many applicants to admit everyone that’s qualified, so yes, you’re going to end up with a few USAMO qualifiers that are rejected. If you admit everyone who qualifies for the USAMO, then there’s going to be someone else or some other group of people, equally deserving of an acceptance, that get rejected. And this group of people you bring up over and over again have perfectly fine options. Maybe instead of MIT, they’ll go to Harvard, or Stanford, or CMU. Even WaitingForGodot got accepted to the University of Virginia. Their situations are not a tragedy by any means.</p>
<p>And honestly, this whole discussion is silly. MIT obviously cares about achievement on math contests much more than other top universities - otherwise they wouldn’t even ask for AMC and AIME scores on the application!</p>
<p>Concerning the correlation of SAT scores with income: At the high end of the income data, showing the correlation, the College Board stops short of the family income when both parents are high school teachers. A family like that is comfortable, but they are not wealthy. The average SAT score in the highest income bracket covered in the released data is not in the Ivy category. </p>
<p>I have never seen data going higher in income. It makes me wonder how far up the correlation persists. Perhaps the increase in SAT scores with income continues right up to the 400,000 households with annual incomes in excess of $1 million. But perhaps it levels off at some point.</p>
<p>Also, I think there are a lot of students who don’t actually know their family income.</p>
<p>IIRC, a few years ago MIT made it pretty clear in their online blogs, etc. that they knew not every applicant would have access to all the possible activities that might be viewed favorably. They also included links to some of these resources. I recall one young woman on CC who applied to MIT around S1’s time who took the initiative to start an AMC/AIME competition at her school, raising $$ for the tests and arranging for a faculty sponsor. </p>
<p>That said, I know the benchmark for getting into MIT from S1’s public school is pretty high, because they know what the school has to offer and who has taken full advantage vs. who has coasted along.</p>
<p>Quite a while ago, I think I used the term “sub-optimal” to characterize the rejections of people who are over-the-top excellent. I have not said that it is tragic. </p>
<p>I do think it makes a difference to the country, though, if the most challenging undergraduate education is not offered to the students who can make the most of it. There are probably people that MIT took that year who could have been equally well served by UVa.</p>
<p>If MIT has internal studies, showing that they students they admitted, whose academic profiles were not as strong as the over-the-top students, actually turned out better, 5, 10 or 50 years later, I would stop objecting–even if they cannot make them public. They have said that women at MIT have slightly higher GPA’s than men at MIT.</p>
<p>Yes,warbrain, my 780 math SAT, 800 SAT ll math, 5 on AP Calc BC and Physics settled for the University of Virginia. Not a tragedy and he has not been scarred for life. He applied ED to UVa but clearly missed the boat on being with the best math and physics minds on the planet(just kidding). CMU grad dad felt UVa much better fit for him. No interest in CMU,MIT,Caltech,etc. All great but not for him. There are plenty of high performing kids at state schools and other privates that are there for many reasons(fit,finances, geography,etc) and will do very well in life.
QuantMech, Our family is middle class (upper I guess with engineer father ) but not at all wealthy. No SAT prep(older son took some 3 hour class in 10th grade that did nothing to help so we were done after that, did none of these math or science Olympiad things.) I can’t imagine the studying that might go on to produce these Olympiads. One of older son’s public school classmates ( a year older actually) made some USA Today award for doing research as a high school student. This guy’s parents were both doctors and it looked like the dad had facilitated alot of the research by hooking his son up with the local med school. I would imagine that contributed alot to this boys results.</p>
<p>What do you mean by “turned out better”? How do you quantify this? What if the brilliant math major at MIT decides he wants to be a lawyer, a hedge fund analyst, a rabbi, an elementary school math teacher, a social worker … or a stay-at-home dad? Are MIT graduates (or graduates of any university, for that matter) obliged to follow xyz path to “prove” that they were worthy of admissions?</p>
<p>Look, if MIT felt their admissions policies weren’t giving them the kids they wanted, they’d change them. It’s really as simple as that.</p>
<p>sevmom, the issue for me is not whether people choose MIT, but whether they are letting all of the really over-the-top applicants in. Of course, some of them will want to go somewhere else–maybe quite a few of them. Collegealum314 mentioned that I was admitted to MIT, as an undergrad many years ago. I picked a different university, for financial reasons. When I received my financial aid package from an Ivy, I was projected to graduate with a debt higher than my family’s annual income; and the summer earnings I was projected to have were about 5 times my actual summer earnings. (It’s possible that they didn’t want me that much.) I didn’t even wait to see what MIT was offering in the financial aid packet, which came separately from the admissions notification–I assumed that it would be similar–before deciding to go somewhere that was better, based on financial considerations. I was also strongly influenced by the egalitarian ethos of the time.</p>
<p>Financial aid policies have changed now, so things are somewhat different.</p>
<p>Re Pizzagirl, #1512, although the “Institute” gives the feeling of being a monolith, there’s really no “they” there. Different people have different opinions. Marilee Jones wanted a class of people who responded to the question about what they liked to do to have fun, by saying that they like to make a batch of popcorn and watch a movie. I have great respect for people who pick alternate, non-STEM careers, after an MIT education. As long as the people at MIT conducting this (hypothetical) study set the criteria for outcomes before doing the study, I’m fine with any sensible criteria (except, perhaps, for “most movies watched”).</p>
<p>U. of Virginia is a great school. In fact, I probably would have enjoyed it better than MIT. However, regardless of where a student attends college, I think that admissions at super-elite universities act as a positive/negative feedback system, telling the student whether they are on the right track or not. On the MIT board, people often write in and say that they are in the middle of a course and are getting B’s in math or science classes. MIT grads are writing in and saying, “Hey, I did too. It’s more important to be involved in ECs than trying to get A’s in core math/scicence classes.” Or, “go play outside. Don’t obsess about getting A’s.” The implication is that MIT IS science and engineering; admissions says this is not important, so therefore to be an elite engineer you shouldn’t value mastery of core subjects too much. Doing pretty well in school and “playing outside” actually makes you a better prospect in science and engineering–because MIT said so. Maybe some of you agree with these sentiments. I don’t. </p>
<p>The positive/negative feedback system has more consequences. Some kids will find out ahead of time what these schools want, through CC perhaps or from results in their own high schools. If they aren’t good enough at math to make the Putnam team, then they may feel that their time would be better spent doing other activities in order to “get into college”–even if they would rather do math. Studying math, or taking a summer school class, may be like going out drinking with your friends.</p>
<p>QuantMech, I hear you that even many years later you would have preferred to go to MIT or an Ivy but couldn’t make it work for financial reasons. I was not a math person (actually did okay but not my strongest point). I came from a working class family with very well read parents but not particularly formally educated, although maternal grandmother was a nurse (married into a very well educated family-doctors,engineers,professors,etc. but that’s another story) When I was a working class, smart kid in the 70’s, I dreamed of going to places like Bryn Mawr to study the classics (ha ha)- never happened because I went to a state school and was done and had to finance most of that myself. No trying to find smart 1st gen kids back then. But, I support all this now. URM, 1st gen,etc. Can’t hurt. Finances are an obstacle for lots of kids, definitely.</p>
<p>Indeed. (That would be addressing my question #2, in post #1407.)</p>
<p>Question #1 was asked, I believe in post #1403, and I haven’t seen it answered, but a lot has been posted on this thread during my long road trip this weekend. ;)) </p>
<p>Two of the most unintentionally amusing comments were:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(As if it weren’t already a 10-car pile up. :D)</p>
<p>To sevmom, #1515: If I had known then all that I know now, I might have gone somewhere other than the Ivy or MIT–including the university I did attend–anyway. (The debt load I mentioned was post-scholarship, so the university was trying a little, at least.) And as I mentioned, the egalitarian ethos really was a considerable driving force. I have not felt in any way limited by my undergrad institution. That doesn’t keep me from thinking that there are some students–in the completely over the top category–who might have found it limiting.</p>
<p>I’m generally in agreement with collegealum314. If you don’t read the MIT thread often, you might not be aware of the level they seem to be setting as qualified.</p>
<p>I think it’s a fair assumption that MIT has a better handle on what MIT wants than you do. It seems that you’re really angry that these premier science / engineering opportunities are “wasted” on kids that you don’t think deserve it. Well, honestly, that’s kind of too bad. They are a private university and they can set whatever criteria they like as long as it doesn’t run afoul of the law.</p>
<p>Exactly,collegealum, alot of the kids at places like UVa already know how to go play outside and don’t need anybody to tell them to do so. Lots of recruiters like that -high ability along with very good social skills. My younger son is at Virginia Tech in engineering and is already having some recruiters showing interest because he has a very high GPA as well as good people skills. He’s just a good guy and I think he comes across that way. It’s not all about the Olympiad kind of stuff.</p>
<p>Epiphany: #1516 So what you meant by “develop such talent” in #1407 was “develop the talent to search out other schools that could work well”?</p>
<p>Back on 9/14/07, in the thread on “top scorers” and why they are not admitted to top schools, I wrote: Occasionally, a truly excellent student is just unlucky in the admissions decisions at the “very” top schools. I think that such a student can still prosper at a strong research institution or top LAC, outside the “very” top.</p>
<p>I still believe that, for the most part. My position has shifted a little since then, though, to arrive at the one I’ve advocated on this thread, probably because I saw ever more astonishing candidates posting that they had been rejected from MIT.</p>
<p>I don’t take as Panglossian a view of the admissions decisions as some of the writers on this thread do.</p>
<p>I try to write pretty carefully, even though my emotions can run fairly high at times. I haven’t said that MIT is “wasted” on students if they are admitted in preference to the over-the-top candidates (even if the admitted students fail entry-level physics). MIT is not “wasted” on those students. But I have said that this admissions pattern is “sub-optimal,” in my view.</p>
<p>Now I really am off this thread. I wish all the best to everyone, and to your children. I am quite sincere in this.</p>
(That would be addressing my question