<p>Colleges often take ppl for sports teams who have mediocre gpa/sat compared to the rest of the student body there (i.e. stanford, etc. etc.). Why don't colleges take and cheer Math Olympians (i.e. USAMO) like that?</p>
<p>1) People who take USAMO should have good GPA/SAT already (well at least in math/science areas), and the time that they spend preparing is academic preparation that can at least somewhat rub off in school. Example: You learn some new method of proof, say strong induction, and can apply it in class when you are asked to prove something (Kids in usamo are in these kids of classes probably). It’s not the same with sports, obviously.</p>
<p>2) Varsity sports take up A LOT of time. For me, it’s a little over 5 hours A DAY of exercise. That cuts out a lot of time for studying and relaxing. So, I think it’s only fair that people who spend 30+ hours a week on sports to be recognized when they have a somewhat mediocre gpa/sat.</p>
<p>3) Making USAMO shouldn’t make a college love you like a varsity sport. USAMO shows your smart, but if you’re talking about commitment, then you have to say the people who make the final team, which I think is 6 or so (?) out of the ~500 that take USAMO/yr. </p>
<p>4) Colleges do recognize that making USAMO shows natural talent and creativity in math.</p>
<p>This says a lot about what Americans value. Math is just not in the culture here. People here suck at math themselves and have spite for those who are good at math.</p>
<p>Well that last post was an exaggeration. But I think colleges should respect and recruit USAMO qualifiers just like they take varsity sports players. Don’t tell me math doesn’t take the level of talent, hard work, commitment, tenacity, etc. that doing sports takes.</p>
<p>Directly from the AMC and AIME contests: These contests take no knowledge past Precalculus. Beyond looking at the exam and doing practice problems and maybe picking up a book, there’s not much to be done. Qualifying for USAMO requires talent more than ambition, because the questions don’t test random formulas; they test your ability to think and manipulate basic ideas that many high schoolers are familiar with. A little practice can help, but it’s like studying for an IQ test IMO. Sure, becoming familiar witht he format will help…but studying really won’t help much.</p>
<p>What do you know about USAMO? Go take AMC test, can you get 130+ like I did? I got 80s in 9th grade, then prepped a lot (yes I made usamo through lots of practice) and finally made usamo later. Can you yourself get even a 2 on the AIME? </p>
<p>“but studying really won’t help much.”</p>
<p>My BS detector is running high</p>
<p>What about the numerous athletes (i.e. cross country runners) who have so much innate natural ability? There are freshmen who come to my school who have never trained seriously but they have so much natural ability they are already competing varsity level.</p>
<p>Math is related to academics. Sports are activities.</p>
<p>At the same time, it might become subjective to the admissions officer. If the adcom has done a varsity sport, he/she might place more emphasis on it. On the other hand, he/she might see it as ‘easy’ because he/she has done it before. You’ll never know.</p>
<p>“But I think colleges should respect and recruit USAMO qualifiers just like they take varsity sports players. Don’t tell me math doesn’t take the level of talent, hard work, commitment, tenacity, etc. that doing sports takes.”</p>
<p>I’m gonna have to say that sports take more out of you. </p>
<p>I’ve had a sibling do really involved stuff with math/science olympiads. I’m gonna have to say that compared to that, playing football is harder. </p>
<p>This is a sweeping judgment here, but athletes applying to top schools tend to be more interesting people that USAMO competitors applying to top schools. I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions. But when they’re reading applications, coming across a 3.6 2150 varsity football player strikes interest alot more readily for admissions folks than a 4.0 2350 USAMO competitor (even if they did well). </p>
<p>(at least I reaallly hope that is the case). </p>
<p>Moreover, good athletes build good sports teams, which draws audiences and recognition. Division 1 schools want that. Math competitions, not so much. Except within relatively exclusive academic circles. </p>
<p>Bowl games draw more glory for Stanford than Pitzinger (sp?). An NCAA tournament bid does more for Cornell than a science olympiad success.<br>
But that’s not fair.
Too damn bad.</p>
<p>dude, if you hate jocks, just come out and say it. lol.</p>
<p>Haha~! How about we do away with sport recruiting all together? Because obviously academics are the way to go?!</p>
<p>On a serious note, the world loves watching the best of the best play in their respected sports. I know plenty of people that made brackets for March Madness but don’t know a thing about college bball. Sports are athletic activities which test the body and the mind, while exams like USAMO test only the mind. The fact of the matter is, there are more top mathletes than top athletes, and any school would choose the latter if that was the only difference in the application.</p>
<p>
did and got an 8 on my AIME. How do you know I’m not making it up…well I’m actually here to help people lol and don’t waste my time :D. (I got 1-4, 6-8, 11 [shoestring ftw]) I know the format of the test very well and have taken the AMC 8, 10 and 12 as well as the AIME all multiple times. </p>
<p>You get mad at us for saying math takes so much effort, but I don’t see you having four years of a varsity sport behind your belt. Sports are excruciatingly painful (yes, even if you’re being smart and not hurting yourself) at times. Try swimming 8-10 miles a day and then say you wouldn’t rather do math problems after 4 months.</p>
<p>On a general note though, seriously, sports are a much bigger commitment if you are comparing USAMO vs Varsity Sports. Although there is a lot of intellect and talent that surrounds the USAMO, the dedication and hard work of a varsity sport everyday would attract an admissions officer a lot.</p>
<p>As for committment, i would cut off my leg for my team. If you would cut off your leg for olympiad then all the more power to you.</p>
<p>If mathletes become a form of athletes, i think that will be the one sport in which having no legs won’t change the outcome whatsoever.</p>
<p>Watching sports is a lot more fun than watching people do math problems.</p>
<p>It’s not just athletes - anyone that has someone inside the college “pulling strings” for them will probably get in with lower than usual qualifications. Athletes may be the most visible group, but legacies, those who have donated to the university, the famous, children of professors, etc. also have an advantage in admission.</p>
<p>So why are athletes getting strings pulled for them but not Math Olympians? Because athletes generate money for the university.</p>
<p>Math Olympics requires ZERO athletic ability. The reason colleges like sports as EC’s is because it proves the student is not just an academic freak, but he/she also can work out and stay in shape as well as balance the books. Colleges like to see well rounded kids, and if your EC’s are “mathletes” then that is not as well rounded as someone with a slightly lower GPA who is a football player. Athletics and academics are 2 sides of a spectrum, and Math Olympics does not qualify to be on the Athletic side of that spectrum.</p>
<p>And i will tell you that math does not take the same level of “talent, hard work, commitment, tenacity, etc. that doing sports takes”
Not even close. Studying is not the same as training. Sports require another aspect, resilience. From my experiences, Football is a year round sport if you include the off season mandatory weight training, and for about 6 months during the actual “season” I spend 21+ hours per week on football, and I manages to balance school with a decent GPA.</p>
<p>Sad truth, but math olympians do not get alumni to donate like varsity athletes do. End o’ story.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but you come off as REALLY arrogant. Have you ever played a sport in your life? Do you know how much dedication it takes to play a varsity sport, let alone be recruited for that sport? I spend 3 hours a day on sports and I would be lucky to play at the DIII level. People who are being recruited for sports have worked their whole lives at the game they play. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and I’m sure every USAMO qualifier has zero innate ability…</p>
<p>^^^ I could hug you, I agree with every word</p>
<p>Guys give civilengineer a break, he definitely has a point. Qualifying for USAMO is an extremely difficult task (top 500 out of 500,000 initial amc particpants) and * does *, in fact, drain a lot of your time and energy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait…are your trying to prove something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I call bs right here, do I smell the bias in the air? How is a 3.6 2150 varsity football player (assuming he’s not DI level) more qualified than a 4.0 2350 USAMO competitor? Please think before you post.</p>
<p>I, myself, am both a 2x USAMO qualifier and a 2 sport varsity athlete (MVP last year) and both activities drain close to an equal of energy. Although sports are definitely more time consuming USAMO qualification is a MUCH bigger achievement than being your average old 3.6 2150 varsity football player…</p>