These “tests” are the only measurable value that can show the “education”. Although it is true that there may be (and ARE) many other kids that have the potential, there is no way to know who they are. And, as many here argue, since you can get very good education in hundreds of colleges, does it really matter what criteria the few elite use?
2 Likes
I think I either misunderstood you, you misunderstood me, or maybe both. All I was saying is that students need no more than enjoyment and success in maths and physics to succeed at the next level. If they organically want more, make a path for them to get it.
3 Likes
My understanding is the competitions measure problem solving performance on topics which you and others have indicated are outside most high school curricula and “may not even be covered in typical college curricula.” I don’t believe that an “education” in such extracurricular activities is a necessary qualification for success in college.
You mean the potential to be trained to do well in these competitions? You are right, we don’t know who else would have that potential. Likewise we don’t know who would have had the potential to become a D1 water polo player had they been given the proper training from an early age. But then I don’t believe one has to be a successful D1 water polo player to be successful at an elite college either. One is a niche athletic competition and the other a niche academic competition, but they are both extracurricular, and neither are necessary qualifiers for academic success.
There are plenty of reasons why their standards matter. (See, for example, https://www.amazon.com/Chosen-History-Admission-Exclusion-Princeton/dp/061877355X).
Another reason it matters is that these “elite” schools set the standard for what constitutes an excellent student, and students, parents, and even other colleges follow suit. Some mother will read this thread, and decide ‘if these schools are admitting 70+% of these competition honorees, by gawd my kid is going to be one of them’ and we end up with a large sub-culture of young kids drilling to solve problems they don’t really understand in the hopes of fast tracking to Harvard.
1 Like
And when and if the kid does not make the cut all hell breaks loose.
I agree with your evaluation that education for many of the students and their families in our competitive public high school is indeed a competition and is viewed as a zero sum game. I do not have much experience with the college admissions game (it feels like a game doesn’t it?) other than just going through it with my eldest for the first time. The majority of her peers engaged in a ridiculous (in my opinion) amount of extracurriculars for the sole purpose of college admissions and just general resume padding. This is not my interpretation of the situation, they said so themselves. They probably enjoyed some of these activities and learned some but the strings pulled by their family and the small lucrative industry supporting their attempts at their dream school is antithetical to an education for education’s sake. It is interesting that this summer, the summer of their senior year, when college decisions are in and the dust has settled my kid’s peers that achieved their dream at whatever super selective school they were gunning for are working at jobs that they were able to get under their own steam (bus boy, ice cream shop clerk etc.) whereas their peers that are already looking to transfer because the acceptance rate at the institution they gained acceptance to is too high (from their mouths, not mine) are still in competitive mode and trying for internships, shadowing, competitions etc. Take this anecdotal evidence with as many grains of salt as you like but my kids’ school environment is not very healthy in my opinion. I keep reading in these forums about kids developing their spikes and having a spike is an antonym to the word that means well educated in my mother tongue, which loosely translates to well formed.
2 Likes
These national/international contests are meant to identify exceptional talents, even though not all such contest winners will be accomplished in their fields and certainly not all talents can be identified by such contests.
However, elite colleges aren’t just in the business to give kids attending them a college education. They’re also in the business to educate and produce the leaders and superstars in various fields. The probability of some of these contest winners becoming very accomplished is much higher among this group. For example, the probability of finding a Fields Medalist among the IMO medalists is many orders of magnitude greater than that of turning an “excellent” math student by all normal standards (all As in math classes including higher level college math courses, 800s in all standardized math tests) into a Fields Medalist (which is practically zero). This isn’t surprising because a typical kid with normal “perfect” stats, even with the most extensive training by the best coaches, wouldn’t have a chance (or even come close to having a chance) of winning such contests at the national/international level.
7 Likes
One of the indicators for success in college is studying topics outside of most high school curricula. And these students already demonstrated that they can do it at highest level. Does it necessarily mean that they WILL succeed in college? Definitely not. Same as success in college doesn’t necessarily mean that people will succeed in life.
As for the water polo player, his exceptional abilities in the sport don’t directly demonstrate his abilities for learning the knowledge taught in college. In a similar vein, I can argue that job interviews do’t necessarily demonstrate if the applicant is best for a job, but what is the alternative?
The niche academic competition is directly related to the field of study of the student in college. The student demonstrated above and beyond average knowledge in the subject that he’ll study in college. Of course, she might still fail, but she demonstrated that she CAN succeed.
Do you realize that there is NOTHING the colleges can do to stop that mother abusing her kids? And what’s wrong with subcultures like that? People get obsessed with craziest (according to other people) things. That’s human nature.
1 Like
Let’s put this perspective. In my entire 58 years on the planet, there have been 52 Fields Medalists. Competitions may result in a relative odds adjustment, but the actual odds are dramatically low irrespective of one’s background.
2 Likes
The alternative is to simply look at resumes. It’s well known that interviews, at least unstructured ones, result in worse results than no interview at all. This is but one of countless articles on the subject.
1 Like
Does anyone track what the winners of these competitions end up doing with their lives? A longitudinal study of life trajectory by various elite high school achievements would be fascinating. Have any won the Fields Medal?
My guess is that you would find a few bright stars (in a higher percentage than the population generally), and a higher percentage of burn outs, too.
2 Likes
Yes, Fields Medalists are rare. However, the rarity precisely demonstrates and amplifies the value of these competitions in identifying exceptional talents. Besides, Fields Medals were used as an example. The odds of becoming highly accompolished at levels much below winning Fields Metals in math are also dramatically higher among IMO medalists.
I believe there’s a wikipedia page on IMO medalists who later won Fields Medals. I’m also sure there were some who didn’t accomplish much or burned out later in their lives.
It’s probably also important to acknowledge that “highly accomplished” is really in the eyes of the beholder. For some, it’s pure achievement in their field. For others it’s financial success. It’s important to recognize that the two may have no relation.
1 Like
Do we know that?
It sounds a lot like saying the odds of becoming highly accomplished are dramatically higher among Olympic wrestlers. It is such a niche thing.
2 Likes
No such contest is meant to identify people who may become financially successful later in their lives. That’s not the purpose of these contests (nor could they be used for such purpose).
1 Like
Take a look at this page:
2 Likes
Indeed, but some conflate the two. I think that’s important to distinguish between the two, especially as parents hoping to guide their children towards “successful” lives. They need to know what “success” means.
1 Like
Cool! Thanks!
Here’s a section that stands out to me:
“This research paper clearly articulates the contributions of IMO participants to the field of mathematics. This paper gives strong reason to encourage everyone to participate in math competitions beginning in elementary school, and through college, as problem-solving skills acquired through participating in math competitions have long lasting positive effects that helps you whether you pursue a professional or academic career.
The last time a female qualified for the IMO from the United States was in 2007 and 3 female US students have scored medals at IMO. Their mathematics career and contributions validate the research findings. Sherry Gong represented the United States in 2005 and 2007, winning a Gold Medal in 2007. She famously scored over a 100 in Harvard’s problem solving course, Math 55, and went on to get her Ph.D. at MIT in mathematics. Alison Miller represented the United States in 2004 and also won the Gold Medal. Alison Miller studied mathematics at Harvard and finished her Ph.D. in mathematics at Princeton University. Melanie Wood represented the United States in the 1998 and 1999 IMO and won Silver Medals in both years. She was the first female to qualify for the IMO from United States. She completed her Ph.D. in 2009 at Princeton University and is currently a Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin.“
(1) The article absolutely highlights IMO participants’ contributions to mathematics. And there are Fields Medal winners among them.
(2) I don’t think the article “gives strong reason to encourage everyone to participate in math competitions”. It highlights achievements of a few very talented people. Who can argue with encouraging anyone to do anything? But I don’t know that preparing for math competitions is a good use of time for ordinary math mortals. You could have encouraged me to wrestle as a youngster, but entering me into competitions would have been a horrible mistake for all involved.
(3) what a sad thing that so few women participate.
2 Likes
Yes. Right off the top of my head is Terence Tao, probably the brightest mathematician alive. He won the IMO gold medal at age 13, and the Fields Medal at age 30.
He was also selected for John’s Hopkins Study of Exceptional talent by scoring above 700 on the math section by age 8 (SET requires a score above 700 on either section before age 13). Hopkins did a longitudinal study of SET qualifiers and found that almost a quarter went onto to get PhDs.
Again, wrestling, as well as water polo are really bad analogies here. Nobody goes to college to get bachelor’s in wrestling or water polo. While math is essential in a huge number of majors pursued in universities.
1 Like
Definitely not everyone should participate or be encouraged to participate in these competitions. S/he not only needs to be naturally highly talented but also loves the subject and is willing to dedicate to the pursuit. For math, one way to find out if a kid is suitable candicate (in an English speaking country) is to get the two-volume book of the same title by the founder of AoPS.
The awareness of and the availability of opportunites in these contests also vary significantly. Math competitions have by far the most participants because of their awareness and availability. By contrast, far fewer have access to the necessary resources to participate in the physics contests. USACO is becoming increasingly popular and accessible as a student only needs a computer and an internet connection to participate.