<p>The argument which I was referring to was when two applicants went to the same high school but one did better since they were brought up to value education. Specifically, this argument is has been used to devalue the achievements of Asian candidates. </p>
<p>Look, I am actually sympathetic to the idea of looking at people in context. I just think some of the specific examples I’ve seen are wrong. I’ve been around the block enough times to know that some of these distinctions are impacted a lot by your school environment. If you had used Intel Finalist as the example instead of USAMO, then I might have agreed with you.</p>
<p>@QM: About leveling the playing field at MIT, the point of selecting high-achieving students who haven’t had the greatest opportunities is that MIT then offers them those opportunities. Someone from a rural background who has never taken physics or calculus can easily still graduate in 4 years from MIT (with coursework similar to a more advanced student). Almost all freshmen will struggle on entry to MIT, but the pass/no record first semester allows them to adjust without ruining their GPA.</p>
<p>There is also Interphase EDGE, which is a summer program for students who feel the need to further prepare for MIT. It involves a summer spent at MIT taking non-credit classes in calculus (at a few different levels; they choose), physics (same thing), chemistry, and writing. These classes prepare students of lesser educational backgrounds for a) the coursework/content of MIT’s early classes and b) the general intensity of those courses. This is a big step towards “evening the playing field.”</p>
<p>There’s no reason that a student of a lesser background, once at MIT, would need more than 4 years to graduate. The initial shock will be great, yes, but they will adjust like anyone else.</p>
<p>I realize that it’s quite possible for the students with weaker backgrounds to graduate from MIT in four years, but I think that this comes at the cost of taking courses at the same time that should really be taken sequentially, and not reaching the level in undergrad work of which the student is capable. </p>
<p>I referred in the earlier message to students who are taking quantum physics and linear algebra at the same time, when it would be better to have linear algebra first, so that the concepts can be internalized. It would be better to have partial diff eq and boundary value problems (whatever the MIT equivalent is) first as well. To give an earlier example, it is a lot better to have completed multi-variable calculus before taking E&M. There are later courses in physics where it is better to have complex analysis first.</p>
<p>Instead of forcing the students who come from less advantageous educational backgrounds to struggle through 2 or 3 years, I think it would be better to make it possible to sequence the courses sensibly.</p>
<p>To give an example from a different context: West Point and the Naval Academy both offer year-long prep schools for students from less educationally rich environments. Disclaimer: they appear to be using this in part as a means of red-shirting varsity athletes. But aside from that, I think that they need to offer the full year to some of the students, because there is a fairly high degree of uniformity in the courses that the students take in the first two years of the academies, at least, and everyone has to take quite a lot of engineering.</p>
<p>I think that the MIT summer program is good, but in my opinion, there’s an element of “let’s pretend” in thinking that any student, no matter how bright, can compensate for 13 years of sub-par education in one summer.</p>
<p>I do think it is possible to sequence courses sensibly. The problems you are describing arise because of MIT’s flexibility with pre- and corequisite classes. Students have greater freedom to choose classes because of this flexibility, which can be a great benefit to them, but they are also free to make non-ideal choices and learn from those choices.</p>
<p>Nobody is forcing anyone to take linear algebra and quantum mechanics simultaneously, but the fact that they have that option is, in my opinion, a good thing.</p>
<p>Edit: MIT doesn’t schedule classes for students over their 4 years. They make those choices. There are resources available to help them choose well, but sometimes they make mistakes. I still think it’s a good system.</p>
<p>Right, I understand that, luisarose. To use an example from my university, though, we have a number of math classes that are listed as co-requisites of specific physics classes, rather than pre-requisites, but the co-requisite listing is really “for the books” in the sense that it makes it appear possible to complete the degree in 4 years. </p>
<p>In practice, taking the classes simultaneously makes it nearly impossible for a student to learn all that he/she should and could, if the classes were taken sequentially.</p>
<p>Richard Feynman and anyone else who might be called “No Ordinary Genius” are possible exceptions to that statement–however, there really are not a lot of Feynmans anywhere, even on the faculties.</p>
<p>Oh, okay, I see what you mean. I understand your point, but I don’t think that MIT would make things better by adding strict prerequisites to improve the sequencing of classes. Students who plan their coursework carefully can probably avoid major problems of lack of prereq knowledge, but if MIT changed its policies to firmly require linear algebra before quantum mechanics, it would make scheduling a lot more difficult for everyone at MIT. If this policy were enacted for lots of courses, many more people would have to stay for a 5th year which is dicey financially (may or may not get need-based aid) and certainly not ideal for most students.</p>
<p>I think overall the idea behind the flexible scheduling of classes is that MIT won’t coddle its students by telling them what to take when. There are suggested prereqs (I think) and some that are listed, but can be exempted in special circumstances. If a student chooses to take a certain class anyway, that is their call and if they struggle, that’s their own decision. Enforcing a specific sequence of classes would reduce what makes MIT special – the trust they place in, and freedom they give to, their students.</p>
<p>I agree about not enforcing pre-requisites. A lot of the issue depends on how the courses are logically structured, and what level of developed ability and understanding is assumed, based on the supposed list of previous courses.</p>
<p>At my university, we used to have some math courses where the only listed pre-requisite was “mathematical maturity.”</p>
<p>With regard to taking 5 years–I strongly agree that the cost of this should not be dumped on the student who was already disadvantaged by K-12 education. That is why I am going to be looking for a foundation that might entertain a proposal to fund an extra year, on a full-scholarship basis, for a group of students who could really benefit from an extra year of undergrad work. I view this as a kind of “test of concept.” In some majors, I think it would be completely unnecessary. But in other majors, it could significantly affect the quality of the educational experience for the students, in my opinion.</p>
<p>That could be a great assistance for some students. I’m not certain that it’s necessary (to the point where MIT needs to make structural changes to address the issue), but if it came to exist, I think it could be helpful for many people.</p>
<p>I did not realize that MIT offers remedial courses in the summer for admitted students. This contradicts their claims of merit based admission since they clearly knew some students not ready for MIT classes. Why taking them since there is no lack of super-qualified applicants? This is unthinkable in the real world. Would NIH, DOE, DOD or NSF give some slack to a proposal because PI comes from a lesser institute? Luisarose’s background of GPA3.8, an academically privileged family, and not much national level EC also puts fuel to the fire of the debate on affirmative action on gender.</p>
<p>MIT keeps filling their classes with unqualified students! </p>
<p>If you believe this to be true than how do you explain MIT’s stellar reputation. When do you think that employers will realize this scam and stop recruiting and offering the highest salaries to MIT graduates?</p>
<p>^^I would be wary of this statement about “highest salaries”. Yes, for a technology based school…but if you parse this salary misinformation…schools like Carnegie Mellon, Harvey Mudd, Caltech even do better than MIT…and schools in top tier don’t even show up on the list because they have graduates in different fields outside of technology/engineering…</p>
<p>…but, I would surmise that those other schools have people going to professional schools or wallstreet who eventually make lots more money than what the survey shows for students that recently graduated from tech schools.</p>
<p>MIT is one of my most admired institutes. I am just little shocked that they go this length on social engineering. However, they always pick the right person for faculty position…, unlike Harvard which has a lot of turn-overs on junior faculty level (it hired the wrong guy to start with). MIT probably doesn’t care much on undergraduate level.</p>
<p>Not that many people are on the US IMO team in the first place. On the other hand, this year 5 people from Harker and 6 people from Philips Exeter qualified for USAMO, while only 3 people from the entire state of Ohio did so. Obviously just going to Harker or Exeter isn’t going to guarantee USAMO qualification, but that’s a really big difference, considering that Ohio has a lot of people.</p>
<p>underachiever, you completely misunderstood the point of Interphase. Interphase is not “remedial” courses, which implies that the students are low-level or otherwise academically unqualified for “regular” classes. Interphase is simply an option to help those who were selected from high schools that had fewer opportunities, i.e. rural schools that didn’t offer calculus. Are you suggesting that such students are completely without merit? That nobody intelligent could grow up in a rural area with fewer opportunities?</p>
<p>Those students could be the best of the best intellectually and still be underserved by their schools, and Interphase gives them the chance to sample MIT life before being thrown into it full-force. It does NOT mean they are underqualified.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>3.8 UNWEIGHTED, 4.5 weighted. I have a perfect 36 on the ACT, aced Multivariable Calc as a junior, and currently help teach it. I run 2 clubs and help lead a few others. I also take AP Physics C online (10 hrs/wk), work 2 part time jobs (20 hrs/wk), play 3 instruments in 6 different musical ensembles. So where am I unqualified, exactly?</p>
<p>edit: “not much national level EC” god, I am disgusted by this. I’m sick of having to defend my acceptance to MIT because of my gender. Is it so unbelievable that a girl could get into MIT on merit? MOST MIT students have no “national level EC,” including the white men.</p>
<p>Luisarose:
“Interphase” class is a sounding good term substitute for remedial class. Either way, the classes are for someone not ready for regular MIT class. It is not up to me to determine your qualification for MIT. You may get 8 Bs in 40 courses in your high school to achieve 3.8. No matter how you put it, this is not outstanding, particularly not from a vigorous school. If you have outstanding EC achievement in National or International level, I will think otherwise. Not to diminish your achievement, an Asian male with your application will most likely be rejected. I read you posts initially with sympathy, and disagreed with OP. However, the more you wrote, the more I feel that you are defensive and argumenting. I hope that MIT does not make a mistake.</p>
<p>Maybe Exeter just recruits people who are on the verge of qualifying for USAMO as freshmen. I’ve heard that the IMO people generally are on scholarship at Exeter. I have no idea what the training is like there, if there is any serious training. In my day at a school that was very successful at it, the people who qualified for USAMO and beyond did it through self-study. The curriculum itself I think helped with the AMC (not intentionally, but there was some overlap,) but not the AIME or beyond. </p>
<p>Exeter, or any private school in general, did not have much of a presence on the math contest scene. I don’t know what they did to change this.</p>
<p>My understanding is that Exeter’s recent emergence as one of the best high schools for math competitions has to do with them recruiting top math contest students not having a much better way of training students. You can see how many USAMO qualifiers the best high school here [AoPS</a> Forum - Top USAMO and USAJMO schools, v. 2013 ? Art of Problem Solving](<a href=“http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=133&t=530969]AoPS”>http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=133&t=530969). The very top schools almost always draw students from an unusually large pool of students (think Exeter drawing students nationwide, or TJ drawing students from most of Northern Virgina) or are from the Bay Area in which case there is a huge amount of talent available. Even among these schools all but a handful only have 3-4 USAMO qualifiers per year. I think this data supports the hypothesis that the advantages in USAMO from coming from an elite high school are small and that freely available resources such as AoPS are nearly as good for preparation as anything else. I think this data also supports the claim if someone never heard of USAMO it’s very likely (but not certain) they would not have made USAMO even if they had heard of it. I would also say that USAMO is very different from science fairs in this respect where really good mentorship and lab space are actually critical. The AMC exams are also administered pretty widely nationally so I think that suggests they could play an important role in admissions for some students.</p>
<p>Also while you can certainly graduate from MIT in four years coming in with a weak background I think QuantMech is correct that possibilities are limited (at least in some fields such as math). At MIT the norm for top math students seems to be at least a couple of graduate math classes before their senior year. Obviously this is not very feasible for all but the most brilliant students starting in calc I or II.</p>
<p>The reason that I think that students at Phillips Exeter have a huge advantage in terms of qualifying for the International Mathematical Olympiad is that Dr. Zuming Feng is a math teacher there, and he has been the US IMO Team Leader and Head Coach since 2003.</p>
<p>Contrast this situation with that in a typical high school, where the Calc BC teacher is hard pressed to answer more than 2 or 3 of the 15 AIME questions.</p>
<p>Yet, among all of the students at Phillips Exeter, the number who even qualify for the USAMO is not that large. To me, this means that having the most favorable environment possible only goes so far in helping a student to develop a very high level of capability. </p>
<p>The Mathematical Association of America offers workshops to high school teachers, to help them prepare their students for the AIME. The stated rationale is that a bright student can reach AIME qualification level on his/her own (assuming that the student has access to the AMC exams, to begin with), but then at the next level, there is an unusual geographic/school concentration that cannot be rationalized in terms of the distribution of raw talent.</p>
<p>The point that collegealum314 and I have been making several times is that a student who does well on the USAMO is definitely showing signs of an unusual talent, and is not simply the product of a great environment (although the great environment helps). We doubt that there are 1500 students per year who are more promising in math/science than students who score some points (say 4 and up, out of 42) on the USAMO.</p>
<p>Of course, there might be more promising mathematicians who have never heard of the AMC/AIME/USAMO/IMO in high school, or who did hear of it, but attended high schools that left them unprepared for it. AoPS is doing excellent work to level the playing field, but it can only go so far. My rough guess is that USAMO participation (plus a score threshold of 4 and up) will sweep up about 10% of the most promising young mathematicians in the country.</p>
<p>collegealum314. There is a set of videos on YouTube about the US IMO team and qualification process, and though it doesn’t give a complete picture of the training at Exeter, it pretty clearly indicates that there is substantial preparation going on–and by someone who knows what he is doing!</p>
<p>I think the videos show the 2005 or 2006 team.</p>