<p>QuantMech, I would respectfully ask you why you seem so concerned with what MIT is or is not doing decades after you might have been a student there, had finances not been an issue? There are lots of “astonishing candidates” being rejected at lots of colleges. It is what it is. I still don’t see how MIT has a monopoly on all the best minds of a generation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, for me it’s more about the people who don’t get in rather than the people that do. I’d be fine if they doubled the size of the class and let everybody in. It’s not about keeping it “exclusive.” </p>
<p>The main reason I post is to encourage those who didn’t get in who are super-qualified. I think perhaps an alumni telling them that people at MIT disagree about the choosing criteria will help them, that they weren’t rejected from “MIT”, just the people in the admissions office. I tell them that the criteria is very different for grad school, at MIT and elsewhere–if they applied with comparable accomplishments (extrapolated to college) then they would be the ones preferred. Perhaps that will help them continue on the same path and continue to put in the same amount of energy and sacrifice.</p>
<p>BTW, MIT IS a private university. But if they don’t want my input, if my two cents aren’t valuable, then maybe they shouldn’t be calling me asking me for money every year!!</p>
<p>collegealum, I think it will still boil down to who these “super-qualified” people who didn’t get in are supposed to be? By whose standards? I’m still trying to figure out how this thread got so focused on MIT?</p>
<p>I don’t know what MIT wants, but we did think it amusing back in 2007 that Harvard thought our computer geek kid was just dandy and MIT seemed to think he should spend more time doing something non-computer related. (At least that’s how Marilee Jones seemed to be communicating what they were looking for.) I never thought my son’s chances at MIT were better than 1 in 4 looking at scores, grades and the school’s acceptance history, while I thought his chances at Harvard were better since Harvard inexplicably seems to like our school more than Princeton or Yale and MUCH, MUCH more than Stanford, so even without being a legacy I thought he had better odds there. It’s pretty funny though that a thread about Ivy League admissions has ended up discussing MIT and reminds me of the little sigh I repressed when son’s GC said he was theoretical match at any of the Ivy’s including MIT.</p>
<p>But astonishing students are being rejected from EVERY top university - because these universities have sub 15%, sub 10% admission rates! There’s nothing special or magical about MIT non-admitted students in that regard.</p>
<p>This would only be worth worrying about if our system were more like those in some other countries - where, if you don’t get into a handful of universities, you’re pretty much doomed to worker-bee / blue collar status and you’ll never get anywhere. The US isn’t like this, though. There is no one who, as long as they apply effort, won’t do just fine. There is no monopoly of 5, 8 or 20 colleges on life prospects, at all. So the brainiac winds up at Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, Duke or Carnegie-Mellon instead of HYPSM. You’ll forgive me if I suggest that this isn’t even remotedly a problem in life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they don’t understand that at universities with these low admissions rates, that the chances are slim for everybody - then they aren’t smart enough for MIT. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, maybe they should get outside and get some fresh air and throw a frisbee.</p>
<p>Collegealum - I don’t know why your advice to these students doesn’t include “as smart as you are, you will absolutely kick some butt at [wherever the student is going].” Because that’s truth. Well, if they permit themselves to do so. If they continue to stew over not getting into MIT as though MIT is the only game in town, well, then I guess they won’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I think a start would be for admissions to say, “We admit the people who we think have the most promise in math, science, and engineering, and who appear to have the work ethic to realize this promise.” (Let’s not quibble about the “math,science, and engineering” part; the statement could be expanded to include some other majors which are strong at MIT.</p>
<p>The rhetoric seems to be that they don’t care how promising you are. One of the examples MIT admissions cites to soothe the nerves of potential candidates was that MIT rejected an applicant who built a working nuclear reactor in his garage. The kid also had the endorsement of the MIT nuclear engineering dept., who verified that the project worked and that they were impressed with the kid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MIT admissions is simpler to talk about than the ivies because the people by-and-large are all science/engineering candidates. Also, excellence in math/science is more easily quantified, so trends are easier to observe. </p>
<p>I’m going to try to remove myself from this thread now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I try to tell them this too. Quantmech had a particularly clever observation. Even if a slacker (on relative terms) and a super-qualified kid go to the same university, say a huge state university, the two kids aren’t going to the same university. The one who prepared themself better will be able to take more advanced classes, get more personal contact with faculty (because of being a better student,) and be able to engage on a higher level in research and other opportunities.</p>
<p>
Not to focus this thread on these tests, neither of which I’ve participated in. But I have looked at several of the available online sample questions and IMO there is no comparison between the AIME and the AMC (either 10 or 12). AMC 12 is basically a slightly more difficult Math 2 SAT 2 exam. It is a weeder test to determine who gets to take the AIME. Here’s some sample AIME questions. To me, I don’t seee how being a “human calculator” will help you answer these questions -</p>
<p>[AIME*Practice</a> Questions - 2003 AIME alternate, 1-9](<a href=“American Mathematics Competitions | Mathematical Association of America”>American Mathematics Competitions | Mathematical Association of America)</p>
<p>Sure, you can probably be coached on methodology. But I don’[t think the problem is calculation. Sure, it doesn’t prove you are a genius, but it isn’t a trivial calculator exercise. And the Olympiad questons are likely even tougher</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Sorry if I was obscure. Wasn’t trying to be. 
I meant: It is not up only to the Elite Schools in the U.S. to seek out and find such talent, and the student correspondingly to wait passively to be “discovered,” hoping, hoping, that if only so-and-so tippy-top U were to fall in love with me, just maybe, maybe, I could use my talent. (Implying that otherwise, I can’t.) </p>
<p>And I do not use the phrase fall in love casually, because it really truly reminds me the whole adolescent love-interest thing sometimes. (“Only” Heart-throb University will do; otherwise, I may have to resign myself to a life of desolation as a rejected lover.) I’m not mocking students; I’m showing that the language and the premises and the anticipated conclusions are so similar to a one-track romantic (emotional) venture. Yes, an “elite” school in general offers the possibliity of special opportunity. That opportunity does not always materialize, even for admitted students. IOW, an advantaged career track may or may not develop after graduation; the student may change his or her mind about that career track, mid-stream, requiring a rethinking of that path. Or the career path (I’m speaking of all fields, not just math/science) may or may not be as promising as the “name” of the elite school is. Depends on the field. </p>
<p>I posted some examples on the ‘undergraduate ivy’ thread last week about examples I know of students who did not attend elite undergrad schools but are in elite grad schools and have promising futures.</p>
<p>In conclusion (QM), I do believe that it is the student and the student’s support structure (academically & personally) who share responsibility, along with the universities in this country, to seek whatever paths are possible to develop such innate & developed talents. So if you find yourself deprived, due to competition, of an opportunity to Bloom where you would like to be Planted (your favorite garden), it’s partly up to you to locate a different garden where you can bloom in just as glorious a manner. (Sorry for the corny metaphor. yeah, I know. :eek:) </p>
<p>Many, many times, the student did absolutely nothing wrong in/with his or her application; nothing was “off.” There is simply no way to predict, with blind competition factors, whether that fabulous app will seem as ideal a contribution to the mix for the incoming freshman class as Similar Fantastic Student in Idaho or North Dakota – majoring in something else, or with just as fine a profile but is also committed to an ongoing national community service effort that this campus is sponsoring this year. (Or insert other unknown reason for adding variety.) Note that the interest is not a substitute for the academic excellence, but just defines similar students in different ways. Quirkiness or eccentricity is not a reason for admission. The U’s don’t have to rely on that. They have plenty of The Real Deal pouring in not to have to stretch. It’s just a value-added that they’re looking at. And they will be the first to admit to rejecting a ton of valuable students every year. The only way to avoid that would be to triple the size of these private campuses, and year they’re not going to do that.</p>
<p>collegealum, Interesting thought -however, my younger son- a slacker in high school in terms of your definition-is now at the top of his class in engineering at Virginia Tech,asked to be an undergraduate TA,etc. Very high GPA. Lots of kids, particularly boys, take time to get it together. He is doing much better than lots of kids who did better with grades than him in high school. Of course, though, we are only talking about Virginia Tech engineering,not MIT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely true and we’ve lived through it. </p>
<p>The same application can garner a reject from Yale, for example, and an acceptance from Harvard, for example. If you looked at the Yale rejection, you’d say something was missing in that applicant’s profile/application. If you looked at the Harvard acceptance, you’d say that it was golden.</p>
<p>Yet it’s the same application!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They admit SOME of the students they think have the most promise. They can’t admit them all, because there aren’t enough beds. It’s as simple as that.</p>
<p>And I note that you are defining “promise” in terms of the actual fields of study. That’s really narrow. “Promise” can also be in leadership, community service, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, come ON now. The nuclear-reactor example doesn’t mean that “they don’t care how promising you are.” You didn’t read the file of nuclear-reactor kid; for all you know, he kicks puppies, can’t work with others and they were afraid he would use his power for evil. You simply don’t know, and it is disingenuous to suggest that MIT “doesn’t care how promising you are.” No - it means that evidence of super-brainiac-itude is not, in and of itself, automatic reason for admission.</p>
<p>""AIME*Practice Questions - 2003 AIME alternate, 1-9</p>
<p>Sure, you can probably be coached on methodology. But I don’[t think the problem is calculation. Sure, it doesn’t prove you are a genius, but it isn’t a trivial calculator exercise. And the Olympiad questons are likely even tougher""</p>
<p>I am not advertising for AoPS. 
But for those who have successfully gone through their materials upto precalculus, the 9 sample AIME problems canbe done in 30-45 minutes. The first problem is the easiest, even just applying pre-algebra is enough to finish in less than 90 seconds. And yes, it is certainly trainable for some, at least upto doing well in AIME. Now, back to the regularly scheduled program. :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is my impression that the “nuclear reactor kid” is a real person, who might be reading this thread. I think what was written above is just really really ugly and totally unnecessary. I just read the whole 2007 Top Scorer thread. (I even had a small post) The level of discussion was much different in the olden days. I’m off now, too.</p>
<p>MIT is the one who used the nuclear-reactor kid as an example on their blog of a kid who was obviously smart but didn’t get in.</p>
<p>I’m no expert here, but according to my son, who is :), if a pretty good math student puts in a significant amount of time on the AoPS website - takes the $300+ online classes or invests $60+ for each textbook and absorbs the material, they should do quite well on the AMC and AIME without being a genius. It actually seems like there is some sort of collusion between the AoPS and the AMC. This is a certain type of contest math which does not necessarily identify all of the “geniuses.” I have talked to many math teachers - hs and tippy top college professors who heartily agree. Many unbelievable math students don’t go for these contests and don’t want to spend their time on the AoPS website.</p>
<p>Perhaps they’d rather be outside playing or working on more interesting (to them) math problems.</p>
<p>Thanx to collegealum and Quant for their posts if you are indeed signing off. I think college’s post 1522 sums up my personal reasons for exploring this subject. You cite concerns of students, but I actually think the students deal with this stuff better than parents. For me it has been a journey to find out why my kid was rejected by a school that he wanted to go to. At the end of the day I think Shelby Steele has it exactly right, and while many here don’t seem to have a problem with putting less emphasis on achievement and merit I personally think its not right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.[/quote}</p>
<p>Why do you keep insisting that USAMO it “the” predictor of academic strength in math? You have been given countless examples of why it can’t be used to say “who should be admitted.” It does not give a complete picture of the student. I don’t get why that is so hard to understand?</p>