<p>I've already graduated so my GPA is fixed... It's a lil higher than 3.4 UW but ah well.</p>
<p>^ Considering unholy_ender's post history, I am surprised he is not banned yet.</p>
<p>nvm the guy I'm thinking of is from Taiwan rofl.</p>
<p>to 1234d:</p>
<p>in singapore ppl go RSI at grade 11, ISEF at grade 11/12(not sure), IOI and IMO any grade and ICHO/IPhO/IBO at grade 12. usually male dominates these events, with exceptional examples like fiona :D. Males got National Service for 2 years, so they can only go college 2 year later. so these ECs definitely boost your chances.</p>
<p>well, i have very convincing stats of IMO medalists in US. check out Putnam top 100 individuals and compare it with IMO gold medalists list. around 85% match i predict, and remember each university only sent a team of 5 members.</p>
<p>to screwitlah:</p>
<p>yeah i know. just want to point out that you exclude PRC/Vietnam/India scholars, who are equally, if not more, capable of geeting into top US uni.</p>
<p>to unholy_ender:</p>
<p>i'm from the same school as fiona. i got a even worse GPA then her: 4.0/5.0. but i think my school grades does not mean much for these reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>there are only 86 students here. a ranking system for 86 students is credible than RSI/ISEF/Intl Competition? i doubt so.</p></li>
<li><p>almost everyone got 5 in whatever AP taken at grade 11. their school grades varies from 3.0 to 5.0: the bar here is set at very high.</p></li>
<li><p>trade-offs between competitions and school grades. very unlikely you can succeed at both, due to time limit. and i think, say IPhO medal + average school physics grade > no medals + good school physics grade. my low GPA is largely due to the number of competitions i am involved...</p></li>
</ol>
<p>i believe 1234d is from singapore. :D</p>
<p>er.... and also, i don't get why you have to point out how foreigners could get into top unis, because i never ever mentioned them or suggested that they couldn't. i don't think i ever gave the impression that i didn't know they could... and it's not the point of this thread... so that's totally random. but whatever. :)</p>
<p>galileilei:
i'm not denying that for singaporeans, having rsi/I_O/isef etc probably helps. after all, there's probably only <30 siingaporeans going for such programs. </p>
<p>but your argument was about how these achievements don't help international students simply because there are so many award winners, which i disagree with. unlikely singaporeans, MOST of these students have ALREADY applied to college even before they took part in those competitions.</p>
<p>screwitlah:
yar i'm from singapore, in case there's any lingering doubts regarding my whereabouts</p>
<p>to 1234d:
Hi, Fiona found about who are you:D i assume that you got the impression from the following fact:
In singapore, IPhO/IBO/IChO is resevered for JC 2 students, but IMO and IOI are not.. In other countries, i assume there is no such limitations. so i think most ppl got their awards before they applied for college. </p>
<p>I got my impression from IMO medalists, and i assume other Intl competition medalists are equally capable. just take last year:
2007 Putnam there are about 30+ ppl in top position, among them only 5 possibly not IMO medalists. If they are Americans, then it is natural: each country only send 6 memebers. (i cant find them on IMO medalist database) In the next 50+ honorable mentions, there are even more IMO medalists. sorry no exact stats...hardly any singapreans on the radar screen since most of putnam ppl are gold medalists:D consider there are 40+ gold medalists every year, i think 25/40+ = 1/2 is a correct approximation. Yeah you can argue they are just gold medalists...</p>
<p>If there were a physics/chemistry/biology contest for undergraduate, i think we will see more such instances.</p>
<p>to screwitlah:
i am sorry. my previous post in retrospect seems retarded.</p>
<p>ECs
1. Science Olympiad
-National Champion for Singapore Physics Olympiad
-Bronze for International Chemistry Olympiad</p>
<p>You are so in everywhere, regardless of your GPA</p>
<p>galileilei:
actually i know fiona_ beforehand, but let's save that for another day. </p>
<p>to be honest, i don't really understand the point that you trying to drive across.
from your first post, you implied that international competitions/representations don't really help international applicants since there are so many award winners
then from your next post, you implied that these awards do help.</p>
<p>anyway, i still believe that for most international i<em>o/rsi/isef who are applying to US, they took part in these comp after their applicantion process.
as for the match between putnam and imo winners, it's probably a case of correlation rather than causation. those math pros who get to top US unis would probably be qualified enough even before they went for imo. case in point: for the 4 rsi07 people who went to i</em>o, 3 went for i_o after getting into mit/harvard, mit/harvard and imperial respectively (the other person being g r e g)</p>
<p>galileilei:
Also, even though many countries don't limit their representatives to 12th graders, you have to agree with me that in most cases (at least for countries which do well at i_o), it's the 12th graders who get into the team, barring the occassional geniuses. even for spore's IMO and IOI, it's mostly 12th graders in the team, other than ppl like j i a h a n</p>
<p>1234d:
haha dun be confused.
let me say it clearly:
1. there are many international students in US got RSI/I<em>O/ISEF.
-> RSI/I</em>O/ISEF boosts their chance when they applied.
2. there are many more international students got RSI/I<em>O/ISEF as well.
->not everyone with RSI/I</em>O/ISEF went for US uni.</p>
<p>looking at the pool of intl students you got 1 and looking at pools of ppl with RSI/I_O/ISEF you got 2. perhaps you agree with me on this? we need a common ground.</p>
<p>what i dun agree with you is that "i guess alot of these international olympiad/isef/rsi ppl aren't planning to pursue their undergrad studies in US anyway" can justify 2. well in retrospect, bringing out 1 and 2 in my posts is irrevalent to this:D</p>
<p>now the other post. dun know about phy/chem/bio. for maths/informatics, i guarantee that every teams got someone like j i a h a n, who has gone for it at very young age: ever in ultra-competitve countries like china got a guy went twice to IMO last year( this year for the first time they got a female). if thats occassional genuises, then IMO/IOI have the highest occurrence of genuises. at least half of the team are 12th graders all the times, but at least 1/6 are not 12th graders all the time as well.</p>
<p>galileilei:
okie, i agree with 1 and 2, but my point all along has been: i<em>o/rsi/etc has been especially useful for international applicants from singapore because of our sch year, which allows students to apply after they are done with high sch (and the many competitions) or even apply multiple times -> this is not true for MOST other international applicants because MOST of them went for i</em>o/rsi/etc after applying to US. On the other hand, there's also a sizable no who decide to stay in their home countries.</p>
<p>and now let's go back to your original premise. according to you there are around 200 medallists. assuming half of them want to go to US -> 100. assuming 1/6 are not 12th graders and 20% of 12th graders are applying after their competitions -> around 20. i know this is not a very rigorous analysis, but we get a figure that is around 1/10 of your original figure. (and if we are talking about ppl who went multiple times, shouldn't we have to factor in a few application cycles?)</p>
<p>haha, then again i profess that i'm not an expert on all these.</p>
<p>galileilei:
okie, i agree with 1 and 2, but my point all along has been: i<em>o/rsi/etc has been especially useful for international applicants from singapore because of our sch year, which allows students to apply after they are done with high sch (and the many competitions) or even apply multiple times -> this is not true for MOST other international applicants because MOST of them went for i</em>o/rsi/etc after applying to US. On the other hand, there's also a sizable no who decide to stay in their home countries.</p>
<p>and now let's go back to your original premise. according to you there are around 200 medallists. assuming half of them want to go to US -> 100. assuming 1/6 are not 12th graders and 20% of 12th graders are applying after their competitions -> around 20. i know this is not a very rigorous analysis, but we get a figure that is around 1/10 of your original figure. (and if we are talking about ppl who went multiple times, shouldn't we have to factor in a few application cycles?)</p>
<p>haha, then again i profess that i'm not an expert on all these.</p>
<p>people can just put down that they won the national olympiad or that they're in the training team to represent their country in an international olympiad. not bad already.</p>
<p>no they can't, for americans - the FIRST local test is in February. for Malaysian, its much later. that's the two cases that i know.</p>
<p>huh - the first local test is the feb of the same year as the i_o in july?!</p>
<p>for icho - yes, some local tests are held in february. the american team is chosen about two weeks prior to the actual olympiad.</p>
<p>wow that is crazy</p>
<p>i think i know how is like for most I<em>O medalists. Yes 12th graders went to I</em>O after they applied to college. But the selection procedure of I_O usually takes many rounds. for IMO, the national team(usually a small group less than 100 but more than 6) is usually selected at least half a year ahead in many countries. In some countries, like german,china or russia, being in nat team = very high chance of gold medal. that record is good enough. not so for singapore: being in nat team != surely a medal(*). in fact, singapore is yet to win its first gold medal in maths. I hope j i a h a n can make it next year:D</p>
<p>my starting figure is 200 gold medalists in I_O...and i think you should count all participators to start with, or at least all medalists. in some countries, you should count ppl that cant go but also capable of winning medals too.</p>
<p>what really strikes me is that US uni enrolls so many in singapore, whose population is only 4 mil. shouldn't they enroll 250 times more ppl from india (1 bil) or 21 time more ppl from vietnam(84 mil)...</p>
<p>PS: just checed it out, singapore team do better in chem, phy and bio than in maths. so porbably (*) only holds for IMO.</p>