<p>The SAT is a nice, bright, shiny mosaic tile in the middle of the floor, while one's AMC 12 score is a small, dusty, discolored block in the far corner. </p>
<p>Of course, a high USAMO score would be like a crown jewel or golden chandelier for a school like Caltech or MIT. However, that's the level at which this stuff becomes a major deal, not the AMC 12 by itself.</p>
<p>here are some comments from Matt McGann's blog on this topic:</p>
<p>Jan 06
[quote]
Liz wrote, "During my freshman year, I took the AMC and received a 93; I know this isn't too high of a score. Is it still worth it to include it?"</p>
<p>Sure, that's nothing to be ashamed of.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dec 05
[quote]
Helen wrote, "I have somewhat of a dilemma. As MIT is my first choice, and Cal Tech isnt too far down the list, Ive noticed that a lot of applicants to either school have taken the AMC. Im a high school junior right now, so this is probably my last chance to take it and still report my scores. Unfortunately, my school doesnt offer it, which means if I have any desire to take it, I have to discuss this with the department head, recruit people for it, meet very quickly approaching deadlines, etc., etc. Also, according to some discussion on CC, some of people dont report their scores and a score of under 130 wont really help my application. Since my school doesnt offer very challenging math courses (the toughest problems Ive seen since coming to America were regular AP Physics problems: not only fairly easy, an entirely different ballpark), in order to do well, Ill need to study/practice. With the SATs and school finals coming up, stress is at an all-time high, and I dont know if I want to undertake extra responsibilities. What would you suggest I do?"</p>
<p>Feel free to not take on this AMC project at this time -- it honestly won't hurt your application -- but next year, actually organizing your school for the AMC could be your gift, your legacy for the school, something that could live on past your time. Bottom line -- don't stress, but think big!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Mar 25, 05
[quote]
Anonymous wrote, "How important does MIT consider math competitions to be? Do you consider making the USAMO to be a big deal? What about MOSP?" </p>
<p>Math and science accomplishments at the national level are a big deal. As I've continually written, though, accomplishments are far from all that matters in MIT admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Feb 8, 05 (talking about USAMO, ISEF, etc)
[quote]
Certainly, it is true that students who have achieved a national or international degree of excellence in math, science and engineering will tend to fare well in MIT admissions. But do any of the above things, or anything else, guarantee admission? I think not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oct 12, 05
[quote]
Jeff wrote, "I have taken the AMC 12 exam in 10th grade, but I do not remember my exact score. I do have an AMC Certificate of Achievement that is only given to those who scored 90 or above. How should I fill out the AMC/AIME section (Part 2, section 6) on my application?"</p>
<p>Jeff, you could either leave it blank or you could write ">=90." Either way should be just fine. This is something that can sometimes help us but if it is not there, it will not be a big problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Everything that you quoted supports exactly what I wrote earlier, thanks. Matt McGann specifically states that it takes "math and science accomplishments at the national level", a la doing well on USAMO or making MOSP, for MIT adcoms to be seriously impressed. </p>
<p>Note how nonchalant his response about the AMC scores were. </p>
<p>The reason being that the latter hardly matters for college admissions at all. An extracurricular, and not even a particularly good one at that.</p>
<p>Attain a nice USAMO index, do well enough on the exam to qualify for MOSP or win at least honorable mention, then adcoms start being impressed.</p>
<p>qualifying for USAMO at all is a "national accomplishment", even if you make a zero on it. Only about 60-80 MIT applicants per year have that. I attended the central USAMO held at MIT in 2002, and the admissions office was actively recruiting the entire group. That does not mean that a USAMO qualifier will get in if the rest of their app stinks! But most USAMO qualifiers are probably admitted.</p>
<p>You know, this discussion is starting to feel a little like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. AMC results are a continuum, like everything else. Include them if you have a good score (top 10% or so). But it is not going to make or break you any more than getting a 4 vs a 5 on the Environmental Science AP exam is going to make or break anyone.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Only about 60-80 MIT applicants per year have that.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>The real number is probably around 120+. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
But most USAMO qualifiers are probably admitted.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Absolutely false. I hope Ben Jones can comment upon this...</p>
<p>^Well, the problem is that by the time I qualify for USAMO, the admissions process will be long over. Certainly, a decent AMC score can give me a little boost, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The real number is probably around 120+.
[/quote]
Well, not all USAMO qualifiers apply to MIT. But even if the number of angels on the pin is 120, that's still only 1% of MIT applicants, and something like a tenth of a percent of people who take the AMC exams. That means it is more rare in the MIT applicant pool than valedictorians, perfect GPAs, 800 math SAT scores, and a lot of other things that obviously "count" for admissions. </p>
<p>RSI is not a guarantee either, but the fact remains that most of the 60 or 80 or so people who have that get into MIT (not all of them!). USAMO qualification is only a little less rare. It certainly is possible that it is the qualities that qualify students for things like USAMO and RSI that get students into MIT, rather than USAMO and RSI themselves. But statistically, having things like that is associated with a much higher acceptance rate than the 14% or whatever it is for the overall applicant pool</p>
<p>Gracie, why is it so important to you to argue that being a USAMO qualifier has no positive effect at all? I can understand that you want to downplay it's importance, since nothing is a guarantee. But no one here is saying it's a guarantee. The most anyone is saying is that a high AMC score or qualifying for USAMO goes under "good" and should be reported on the app., unlike, say, a juvenile arrest record or the color of your bedroom.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Well, not all USAMO qualifiers apply to MIT.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>My estimate takes that into account. I can almost guarantee it's substantially larger than 60-80 though. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
RSI is not a guarantee either, but the fact remains that most of the 60 or 80 or so people who have that get into MIT (not all of them!). USAMO qualification is only a little less rare. It certainly is possible that it is the qualities that qualify students for things like USAMO and RSI that get students into MIT, rather than USAMO and RSI themselves.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>RSI is infinitely more prestigious and highly-recognized than USAMO qualification. To even compare the two is laughable. RSI is many levels higher than mere USAMO qualification. </p>
<p>Most people who attended RSI do indeed get accepted into MIT. The percentage of USAMO qualifiers that get into MIT is far, far smaller.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
But statistically, having things like that is associated with a much higher acceptance rate than the 14% or whatever it is for the overall applicant pool
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Of course. I never argued this point.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Gracie, why is it so important to you to argue that being a USAMO qualifier has no positive effect at all?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Carefully read through my posts again, texas137. I state several times that the USAMO is indeed a nice accomplishment, but not the overwhelming triumph that guarantees MIT admission many people (including MYSELF at one point) seem to believe. </p>
<p>The topic started because of AMC 12 scores. I can definitively state their positive effect upon a college application, even for Caltech or MIT, is minimal.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I can understand that you want to downplay it's importance, since nothing is a guarantee. But no one here is saying it's a guarantee. The most anyone is saying is that a high AMC score or qualifying for USAMO goes under "good" and should be reported on the app., unlike, say, a juvenile arrest record or the color of your bedroom.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Let's read a bit, shall we?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reason I bothered responding to all this is because two or three years ago, I would have completely agreed with you. I honestly thought that the AMC, AIME, and USAMO qualification, while not an instant accept, meant an awful lot for schools like Caltech, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. </p>
<p>It was only after seeing dozens of USAMO qualifiers do no better at college admissions than someone with the same basic stats and no math competitions whatsoever, and several talks with adcoms and applicants alike, that I realized this was simply not the case.</p>
<p>"RSI is infinitely more prestigious and highly-recognized than USAMO qualification. To even compare the two is laughable. RSI is many levels higher than mere USAMO qualification."</p>
<p>Hmmmm...I don't know about that. Certainly, RSI is more selective, but is it really "infinitely" more prestigious? I know quite a few RSIers who could not, by their best efforts, make the USAMO, though I'm sure there are more USAMO qualifiers who couldn't make RSI. </p>
<p>I understand that you believe most of us place USAMO qualification on too high a pedestal (though, really, from reading this board, no one is doing any such thing), but I would argue that you are overlooking such an accomplishment. I've also seen dozens of successful and unsuccessful applicants, and many of them have had their competition scores give them that "extra edge."</p>
<p>"Even 144 from 10th-12th grade aren't considered very highly by either MIT or Caltech (compared to either research, advanced courses, etc. since the test is a joke)"</p>
<p>There are a bunch of people at my school who take "advanced courses" and do "research," but frankly, the overwhelming majority of them aren't even close to having the ability or potential that most USAMO qualifiers have. Certainly, the USAMO is one of the most prestigious national competitions in this country. And if scores from national competitions aren't even marginally important extracurriculars, what are? I've done sports, music, stu. gov., and research, and there are few activities as demanding or as difficult as USAMO - to say that all of these activities have much more bearing on admissions than placing in the top 250 in the nation seems wrong from where I'm standing.</p>
<p>asiaknight, two years ago I would have written the exact same post, verbatim. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Hmmmm...I don't know about that. Certainly, RSI is more selective, but is it really "infinitely" more prestigious? I know quite a few RSIers who could not, by their best efforts, make the USAMO, though I'm sure there are more USAMO qualifiers who couldn't make RSI.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't doubt that the majority of Rickoids are incapable of qualifying for the USAMO, even in their sophomore years. However, keep in mind that the vast majority aren't doing math research there, they're researching some other scientific field.</p>
<p>Those Rickoids researching math are, on average, much more talented in mathematics than a typical USAMO qualifier.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I understand that you believe most of us place USAMO qualification on too high a pedestal (though, really, from reading this board, no one is doing any such thing), but I would argue that you are overlooking such an accomplishment. I've also seen dozens of successful and unsuccessful applicants, and many of them have had their competition scores give them that "extra edge."
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I don't disagree. The only problem is that this "extra edge" is no larger than if they had volunteered at a homeless shelter for three hours a week. Maybe even less, in some cases.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
</p>
<p>There are a bunch of people at my school who take "advanced courses" and do "research," but frankly, the overwhelming majority of them aren't even close to having the ability or potential that most USAMO qualifiers have.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I completely agree with you. I never said this system was fair in any manner. (I did say that AMC 12 scores are a terrible indicator, but USAMO qualification is more meaningful)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Certainly, the USAMO is one of the most prestigious national competitions in this country.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Which is why those who do well on it get into top programs and universities. Like I said, MOSP people and honorable mention/winners on the USAMO are a completely different category; for them, their math competition accomplishments count for an awful lot, possibly even more than RSI. </p>
<p>However, neither the AMC 12 nor the AIME are considered very prestigious national competitions. And simply qualifying for the USAMO is not an overwhelming extracurricular. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
and there are few activities as demanding or as difficult as USAMO -
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Again, I agree.</p>
<p>I disagree that there are few activities as demanding or as difficult as the AMC 12 and AIME, which qualifies you for the USAMO. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
to say that all of these activities have much more bearing on admissions than placing in the top 250 in the nation seems wrong from where I'm standing.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It has actually been more like 320-350 qualifiers in recent years. </p>
<p>At any rate, it's certainly not the top 250 either; selection criteria is vastly easier for junior high students, freshmen, and sophomores than it is for juniors and seniors. </p>
<p>And there are some huge math talents I've met in college (a lot better than IMO gold medalists in some cases) who have either never taken these exams, or else haven't done particularly well.</p>
<p>One reason is that no one cares about geometry at the college level, while it represents a large portion of the problems on these exams. (Which I always despised)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh, I don't doubt that the majority of Rickoids are incapable of qualifying for the USAMO, even in their sophomore years. However, keep in mind that the vast majority aren't doing math research there, they're researching some other scientific field.</p>
<p>Those Rickoids researching math are, on average, much more talented in mathematics than a typical USAMO qualifier.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As a math Rickoid I'll jump in and say that this isn't necessarily true. Although there were certainly MOSP qualifiers in the group, I doubt even USAMO qualifiers were in the majority among the math kids (although I'd have to check). I applied with a 92 on the AMC-10 and, even with a decent bit of studying the following year, haven't managed to qualify for USAMO. (And although I still consider my RSI acceptance a fluke, I did do decently well there and with subsequent research competitions.) To some extent the type of thinking is just different, although that's by no means an argument that ability in "contest" math doesn't indicate similar ability in research.</p>
<p>flierdeke, I never said most math Rickoids could qualify for the USAMO. I merely noted that on average, they are more talented at math. </p>
<p>Like I said in the last paragraph of my previous post, there are a ton of insanely skilled math people I've had the pleasure of meeting in college who were never a part of the high school math competition scene.</p>
<p>I'll assume you're one of them. :)</p>
<p>Well, I won't make any arguments "against" the math intelligence of my fellow math Rickoids (although relative to USAMO qualifiers that wouldn't be much of an insult). Personally, though, I think that my so-far inability to qualify for USAMO does demonstrate less talent in that specific "type" of math, which has at least some general relevance.</p>
<p>So I'm flattered by your faith in my math ability, but it seems dangerous to assume that any one qualification can define (or set a minimum level for) talent.</p>
<p>I still find math competitions worthwhile and impressive, whatever their relation to either college admissions or "real" math. I'm reminded of a conversation during the first week or so of RSI, when people were still vaguely thinking about other students' prior accomplishments--one of the kids who chose RSI over MOSP was explaining how it's "just" a competition (and not out of easily discernable false modesty) rather than "real" math. The rest of us pointed out that basketball isn't real math, either, nor is it especially useful in any way... but we still reserve the right to be quite impressed by amazing players :)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I'm reminded of a conversation during the first week or so of RSI, when people were still vaguely thinking about other students' prior accomplishments--one of the kids who chose RSI over MOSP was explaining how it's "just" a competition (and not out of easily discernable false modesty) rather than "real" math.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I can think of several students that chose RSI over IMO and one other that chose it over IPO. (All of them were past gold medalists at their respective event, however)</p>
<p>And I'm really impressed by that Rickoid's statement. Few students that are any good at math competitions in high school would dare admit such a thing in 11th grade. (Myself especially!)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The rest of us pointed out that basketball isn't real math, either, nor is it especially useful in any way... but we still reserve the right to be quite impressed by amazing players
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Very nicely said. </p>
<p>And believe me, I'm a fan myself. :)</p>
<p>"I don't disagree. The only problem is that this "extra edge" is no larger than if they had volunteered at a homeless shelter for three hours a week. Maybe even less, in some cases."</p>
<p>You are just flaring people...nobody could possibly say that and mean that. How many people volunteer at a homeless shelter? Furthermore, how many people are capable of volunteering at a homeless shelter? Compare that to USAMO...give me a break.</p>
<p>Nothing quite like an ignorant troll with no knowledge whatsoever of the situation, USAMO qualifiers, and adcoms to spoil a thread which had just reached a nice conclusion.</p>
<p>I'm not sure why you're being so harsh, GracieLegend. I think that stambliark has a point: untold thousands of teenagers, most of whom won't be accepted to elite colleges, work at homeless shelters. Far fewer manage to make the USAMO, and while simply qualifying isn't an indication of mathematical brilliance, it's more solid than the other standard measures (SAT, grades). Quality research is done by very few, and while advanced coursework can be a very strong indicator of talent, it's only convincing when done at a rigorous university. Complex Analysis at a mediocre state college is still impressive for a high school student, but the class itself might be quite easy.</p>
<p>I've made my statement in this thread. Those who are still mesmerized by math competitions can continue to believe that USAMO qualification is a super-amazing achievement that gives one above 50% chances at MIT and is on par with RSI. </p>
<p>Reality doesn't support this, and hopefully at least one person can realize what I was too naive/ignorant to notice back in high school; it's only a big deal if you do well on the USAMO.</p>
<p>OMG WHAT IS THIS OBSESSION WITH RSI ON THIS SITE????? Gracie, how the hell can you compare USAMO qualification with RSI acceptance??? The kids I know how qualified for USAMO WORKED THEIR ASSES OFF throughout their lives and after more than 10 years of intense preparation in contest math, they achieved their ultimate goal-USAMO qualification. </p>
<p>The Rickoid I know personally, on the other hand, heard about RSI about a week before the application was due and filled it out in a day. So with your reasoning, this Rickoid should be held in higher regard by MIT or Caltech, even with consideration that he had no prior research experience, then the USAMO qualifiers who study math, do math, and LIVE MATH day in and day out in order to achieve their goals???</p>
<p>RSI is a nice little summer program that offers a select group of high schoolers with a 3-page application and offers them some nice research opportunities, nothing more than that. USAMO is a highly regarded math contest that IS VERY difficult to qualify for and often takes students years of hard work to attain this level of math ability.</p>
<p>If nothing else, qualifying for the USAMO shows a good work ethic much like self-studying AP's or w/e does to colleges. Stop belittling the accomplishments of these hardworking kids with your innacurate generalizations and poor portrayals of the true admissions picture at elite universities.</p>
<p>I said I had made my last post.</p>
<p>However, the latest response is so stupid and misleading that I had to reply.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
OMG WHAT IS THIS OBSESSION WITH RSI ON THIS SITE?????
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>A great way to start off any post. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Gracie, how the hell can you compare USAMO qualification with RSI acceptance??? The kids I know how qualified for USAMO WORKED THEIR ASSES OFF throughout their lives and after more than 10 years of intense preparation in contest math, they achieved their ultimate goal-USAMO qualification.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>And how the hell can you post such garbage on the Internet??</p>
<p>10 years of preparation?? Where do you come up with this rubbish? The little birdies in your head? </p>
<p>It took me about six months of practicing an hour or two a day to make USAMO, and I've known a lot of kids that qualified without any practice at all.</p>
<p>Out of the many dozens of qualifiers I know personally, not a single one has studied anywhere close to 10 years.</p>
<p>I'd really love to know which USAMO qualifiers you're talking about here, because what you typed is absolutely absurd.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
The Rickoid I know personally, on the other hand, heard about RSI about a week before the application was due and filled it out in a day.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It's nice that you know one Rickoid personally. I probably know close to fifty. Your story sounds a little suspect to me; a week before the application is due he heard about it??</p>
<p>What about the teacher rec? It's possible, but very improbable.</p>
<p>At any rate, this says nothing against the student's intelligence and ability. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
So with your reasoning, this Rickoid should be held in higher regard by MIT or Caltech,
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>My reasoning?? At what point did I ever say that?? </p>
<p>This is simply how adcoms from MIT and Caltech view an applicant. RSI trumps USAMO qualification by a lot, in general. I'm confident that any of the several MIT/Caltech adcoms on this site will agree with me.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
even with consideration that he had no prior research experience, then the USAMO qualifiers who study math, do math, and LIVE MATH day in and day out in order to achieve their goals???
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It's quotes like this that make me think you've never met anyone that qualified for USAMO. </p>
<p>Hell, I know IMO gold medalists that are among the laziest people you'll ever meet. They "live" drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes a lot more than they "live math", most days. </p>
<p>And as for USAMO qualification, saying that the qualifiers have achieved some life-long pinnacle through extraordinary hard work is one of the most retardedly funny things I've heard in a while. </p>
<p>I've met qualifiers that literally hate math, and only take these contests because of parental pressure. Some study math about half an hour a day. </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
RSI is a nice little summer program that offers a select group of high schoolers with a 3-page application and offers them some nice research opportunities, nothing more than that.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>You obviously have no clue what you're typing about. I can't even begin to formulate everything that's wrong with what you just wrote.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
USAMO is a highly regarded math contest that IS VERY difficult to qualify for and often takes students years of hard work to attain this level of math ability.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Very difficult? </p>
<p>Anyone that has a decent mathematical background and studies math competitions regularly for at most a year will qualify. It's quite simple, actually. </p>
<p>I can personally state that I never put any hard work into it, but was able to qualify my sophomore year nonetheless.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Stop belittling the accomplishments of these hardworking kids
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Like myself? </p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
with your innacurate generalizations and poor portrayals of the true admissions picture at elite universities.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Because obviously a 16 year old who has met one Rickoid and zero USAMO qualifiers knows far more about MIT and Caltech admissions than anyone else...</p>
<p>Scurry back into the little troll-hill from whence you came please...</p>