<p>That’s great consolation! Congrats to your son.</p>
<p>ETA:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think, in general, you just take kids more seriously than I do, though I give them more space to gripe. But, your perspective might be more flattering, if we’re honest. </p>
<p>Life is long. College admissions is one point on a long ride. Now that both my kids will be gone next year? I’ve never been more aware of this fact. But, it is probably very flattering how seriously you take what kids do by 17.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well now that you mention it, may I share some of my recent observations? I was looking for the Putnam results hoping to find some familiar names; instead, I was surprised to find many names that I did not recognize. After some googling, I realized that a lot of the top finishers were international IMO medalists.</p>
<p>[MIT</a> Mathematics](<a href=“http://math.mit.edu/index.php]MIT”>MIT Mathematics)</p>
<p>In my mind, this answers the question of why USAMO qualifiers are not being accepted into the top schools as one would expect. Colleges probably want to accept students who are proven performers and these international students fit that bill. It seems to be the case at many institutions: MIT, UCLA, Yale, etc…</p>
<p>[AoPS</a> Forum - Putnam 2012 results ? Art of Problem Solving](<a href=“http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=526859]AoPS”>http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=526859)</p>
<p>My understanding is that the Putnam results are a great source of pride for many schools and finishing well adds to their reputation. I get that these international students probably fill an institutional need, but I can’t help but feel a lot of sympathy for the top performing US students.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to veer this discussion into topics that annoy so many, but I just found this to be interesting.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, not even. Just in the context of admissions. “It’s a college app” and we’re discussing “most competitives.”</p>
<p>Eg, I think this talk about elites versus other schools needs to be taken with one big grain of salt.</p>
<p>My kids used to play Viola and stopped in high school. The orchestra is considered a regular level class and as QM mentioned in one of her posts before about a B+ taking a kid all the way down to top 10%, a couple of extra years of regular level orchestra drops the rank by about 4-5% in the whole school. My older one did one year and lost about 2% for no reason other than she took a class she liked and so we told the younger one to stick to Piano outside school once in high school. </p>
<p>There are some really gifted musicians who get into top schools but they have moved beyond the regular orchestra performers and have made it beyond their State levels etc. These deserve their admissions wherever they get in. </p>
<p>All city first orchestra principal chair - depends on the size of the city they are in and whether the college cares enough about one more kid with a music EC. However, for the school QM is interested in, I don’t know a single kid who got in/went there without some musical involvement. So music ECs in my opinion for this school are actually irrelevant in making or breaking their app.</p>
<p>Bovertine - so many things come to mind when I read your last post. Decorum prevents me to ask any questions! :D</p>
<p>bogibogi,
very interesting piece of information! Explains a lot about MIT admissions to me. The math talents in some foreign countries get a lot of coaching (I’m not saying it’s bad) and thus are able to achieve better results at international competitions than American kids. MIT snatches these kids to make the school look better on Putnam (it’s of course simplifying the dynamics, but nevertheless has some truth to it). I wish there would be more opportunities in the US for talented American kids to develop their math ability.</p>
<p>"
PG: he did just fine, but the kids I describe attended H & y"</p>
<p>So? There’s no distinction. None. He didn’t do “worse” than them. They didn’t acquire some special prize he didn’t. In the least. Part of the problem is the pointless pretentiousness of “upper and lower Ivies.” Please. If you don’t see a Dartmouth acceptance as just as great as a HY acceptance, that’s your own lens you’ve chosen to look through.</p>
<p>texaspg,
I disagree about orchestra participation. My son school’s orchestra is outstanding and other music programs are very good. The majority of kids participate in at least one music program. I believe a lot of our seniors end up at top colleges in part because of their involvement in music. And not all of them are section principals or concertmasters. I believe music helped my son to with the admission successes he has. He is very devoted to his instrument and orchestra participation, and that showed in his application.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My observations comes from working in the computer technology field and having friends, relatives, and older colleagues who have been responsible for hiring for engineering/CS. </p>
<p>Whether it’s an uncle who recently retired after spending 5+ decades as a professional engineer…including being responsible for evaluating and hiring engineering grads for decades or supervisors who have been evaluating and hiring engineering/CS candidates for the last 2-3 decades, I am not going about this as a complete outsider as you seem to be implying.</p>
<p>“I disagree about orchestra participation.”</p>
<p>I am trying to understand what you are disagreeing with. Your son participated and it is hard work and people got into top schools. </p>
<p>How do you know it is what got them in instead of just being another EC? Have you read QM’s messages on this topic that I am responding to?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was making fun of the whole “lower Ivy” thing, something that I find ridiculous in the extreme. (The only issue for my S was that Y was his first choice school, and not only did he not get in while his friend did SCEA, but he had to put up with a lot of commiseration and surprise expressed by classmates, which was galling to his pride. I literally had a couple of people stop me in the grocery store aisle to exclaim about it. It was nice that they thought highly of my S, but it was a little hard to take.)</p>
<p>What do you think orchestra (or even lessons) represents?</p>
<p>And then you can fill in the blanks with other activities- sports, robotics, community. Etc.</p>
<p>Yes, you are, cobrat. Having “uncles who hire” doesn’t make you an expert. Everyone on here has friends and relatives who do various things; it doesn’t make us experts on those topics. I don’t pretend to know hiring patterns outside my particular field / industry and wish you would do the same. It’s constant with you, your assertion that you have special insight into something because a relative does it.</p>
<p>What sent this thread off the deep end?</p>
<p>texaspg,
Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that music doesn’t really matter in high stakes admissions. This is what I disagreed with. I think it matters if it is apparent that the kids did something that they enjoyed, were devoted to, and are good at. Orchestra participation also shows that the kid has been learning to be a team member. It’s a valuable skill for many colleges, including top ones. However, I have to say, we didn’t make our son start music lessons at his early age so that he would have better chances of admission. We believe music is very important for developing many personal qualities. And we didn’t choose his instrument to impress anyone, but because we knew an outstanding teacher. And yes, we are sure music has helped him in admissions.</p>
<p>Interestingly, more and more research is demonstrating the benefits of early music lessons
[Early</a> musical training forms stronger brain connections: study](<a href=“Home | Montreal Gazette | Montreal Gazette”>Home | Montreal Gazette | Montreal Gazette)</p>
<p>I’m not sure if a really odd EC is helpful, but a school having a wide range of EC’s represented is very desirable–and not just because that way the school will have participants to keep their organizations going. My guess is that each of the top schools want to promote and enhance their brand and achieve as much brand dominance as possible. When CNN or Fox need an expert on North Korea, they want them to call their professor. When the New York Philharmonic names a director, they want that person to be an alum of their school. When there’s a new hot sensation in the NBA, it’s great of he hails from Elite X rather than their competitors Elite Y and Z. If someone writes a best seller, they want to brag she once took a creative writing class at their school.</p>
<p>If they admit 100 kids who have the potential to run the NY Philharmonic, that doesn’t give them as much chance for exposure as if they spread the wealth a little. But I’m not sure if admitting the world record pole sitter or award-winning spoon player offers enough potential for positive brand advancement such that he’d get admitted over the first chair violin players. However, the kid who escaped from a concentration camp in N. Korea and is writing and speaking about it, most definitely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really understand this - even if the Putnam was limited to those that went to high school in America, auto-admitting USAMO qualifiers would do little to improve MIT’s result on the Putnam. When current undergraduates were in high school, over 500 people qualified for the USAMO a year, and not all of them can be a Putnam fellow, or even get honorable mention.</p>
<p>I do think that the Putnam results show that MIT does a very good job at admitting and attracting those that do well in math contests.</p>
<p>"I thought you were saying that music doesn’t really matter in high stakes admissions. "</p>
<p>Actually I did about a specific school in question that QM is discussing. I suggested that for that specific school, most admitted students already have music ECs and some may even have extraordinary talent. However, my view is that they are not being admitted based on the music EC since it is the norm for a student applying to have been involved in music than not. </p>
<p>May be what I am suggesting is that it is quite normal for the type of student applying to this school to have been involved in music rather than football.</p>
<p>By the same token, if we refer to art supplement submittal instructions for lets say top 20 schools in the nation, you invariably see some wording asking people to only bother submitting them if you are considered an extraordinary talent at least at the national level. What they are essentially saying is that it is not that important to us in our admissions process if you are not considered a super talent.</p>
<p>Everyone else is being analyzed in terms of the holistic process. Did 5,10, 12 years of music diligently which means the kid can focus on things - check.</p>
<p>Although I started the violin/piano discussion with a quotation from someone who was remarking about applicants to MIT, the point of the violin/piano discussion (from my standpoint anyway) has nothing to do with a specific school.</p>
<p>I am happy to remark that I like lookingforward’s post #900.</p>
<p>QM - I believe my comment relates to most top schools too. I am of the opinion that it is just another EC and how far one progressed may earn one or two more brownie points and nothing more unless they are considered extraordinary.</p>