<p>I think this thread ought to be revived in the interest of next year’s top scoring applicants.</p>
<p>Many people support the idea of trying to compensate for a “playing field” that’s nowhere near level. I’m among them. The overwhelming majority of admissions committees assess each applicant in the context of the academic opportunities available to the applicant. As a separate issue, most American universities are not selecting on academic strength, per se–they are looking at multiple factors. In assessing academic strength, though, most are (I believe) trying to gauge an applicant’s potential, as well as achievements to date. But I’m not sure that anyone knows quite how to do that fairly.</p>
<p>Fair consideration of URMs takes a great deal of thought and work. I support affirmative action. I’d like to side-step that issue entirely for the time being, however, to focus on an extremely narrow issue of leveling: comparing scores on tests of mathematics (standardized tests and various mathematics competitions), achieved by Caucasian or Asian students. I doubt that the CC group will achieve any consensus, even with this narrow focus: </p>
<p>a) Many applicants have taken the SAT as middle-school students. Suppose a university is admitting students who are likely to major in science or engineering. Some of those universities will reject some students whose 7th-grade SAT math scores are actually higher than the 11th-grade scores of some of the students they admit (as science or engineering majors). How large a gap do you think is reasonable? I’d guess that currently it’s about 100 points.</p>
<p>b) How much consideration should be given to USAMTS, AIME, USAMO, MOP (red, blue, black), and IMO? The Mathematical Association of America has begun offering workshops for teachers in an attempt to broaden successful AIME participation. Some of their members have concluded that bright, mathematically-inclined students can generally qualify for AIME “on their own,” but that doing well enough on the AIME to qualify for the USAMO is highly correlated with having a good teacher. . . . and hence the workshops.</p>
<p>Still, I think that qualifying for USAMO is a sign of exceptional ability. Even if a good teacher is usually necessary in order for a student to qualify, it’s clearly not sufficient. So, how much weight should qualification be given? </p>
<p>I should mention that the web site of “The Art of Problem Solving,” their online courses, Alcumus (spelling?) mathjams, etc. are all superb, and are helping to broaden participation in mathematics competitions. So this might become a moot point eventually–but I don’t think that’s happened yet. </p>
<p>As a related issue: How knowledgeable do you think that admissions personnel should be about the level of achievement that USAMO qualification represents? Ideally, I think that MIT–to be specific–should have at least one student member of the admissions office who was a USAMO qualifier. (Perhaps they do already.) I also think that a few of the MIT admissions staff should look over the AIME questions each year, to put their applicants’ accomplishments into perspective.</p>