<p>hey guys, so how do you let MIT know your self-estimated score on the latest AMC. do you call them, email it, fax or mail a letter? </p>
<p>and my highest score on SAT math is only 730 (i even scored a 690 due to bubling mistake), but i qualified for AIME twice, and got 5 on it last year. Can they make up for my low math SAT? </p>
<p>Edit: I do have 800's in IIC and physics though.</p>
<p>Partially.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A great way to start off any post.
[/quote]
Indeed, I actually think this is the high point of all your rebuttals...at least you don't make an utter fool out of yourself with this comment.;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Wow...only 6 months of practice and you made USAMO? I guess it's possible that you became this accomplished at math competitions in such a short period of time if you're truly a very quick leaner or have some level of natural creative/intuitive intelligence; therefore, I won't contest this claim of yours.</p>
<p>At the point where you say that you know people who have qualified to the USAMO with no practice at all is when you start sounding like an unintelligent jackass. I can understand people qualifying for AIME with no prior practice but there is no comprehensible way, no matter how smart you are, that you can pull off a 10+ on the AIME, or anything around that territory, without some form of previous experienc with these type of problems at all.</p>
<p>Actually, I concede that there may be a few prodigies and geniuses here and there that could pull that off but they are few and far between...HAHA and the fact that you know "many" students who fit this description is quite absurd and proves that you've never qualifed for the USAMO and you have no idea what you're talking about.:rollseyes:</p>
<p>For what its worth, I have been doing contest math for about 6 years and I can barely break a 120 on the AMC 12. Guess I'm just a ****ing retard compared to your inherently acquired awesomness right gracie???:mad:</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Guess what, that Rickooid I'm referring to had ABSOLUTELY no science/math activities prior to RSI at all and he admitted to me that he basically just BS'ed all the essays with the help of his dad and basically told his teachers what to write in the recs(even lying or embellishing situations in some cases). Although, he did have perfect test scores, so you can make of that what you will.</p>
<p>OMG, you know 50 Rickoids!!! Guess that makes you pretty special right???</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
There are so many things wrong with what you just said and I don't even know where to start; however, I will try to remain calm and collected. Out of curiosity, what makes a Rickoid more special than a USAMO qualifier in your opinion??? I think we can both agree that applying to RSI is in many cases a one day affair since the application is just 3 pages long. However, USAMO qualification on the other hand, takes many months and years of intense preparation(guess you're the exception since you're apparently the Jesus of math;)) AND AT THE MINIMUM requires a student to take a 90 minute long test(AMC) and then another 3 hour long final qualifying test(AIME). This at least shows a little bit of initiate on the student's part IMHO. RSI admissions is strongly influenced by the factor of luck and deciding whether to attend there doesn't require too much dilemma on a an accepted student's part since the whole trip is FRICKING ALL-EXPENSES PAID.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Wow, you basically just degraded the nation's top mathematicians into a bunch of common alcoholics and rambunctious swineheards. I'm sure you're make MIT very proud with statements like these. I don't even know what to say at this point because I honestly feel that I would be stooping myself down to your level by further arguing with you on the merits of USAMO. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
HAHA my exact reaction to all your other points. I can't imagine why a one month summer program designed to promote scientific incvolvement at a young age would instill so much awe into someone, but my guess is that you're just bitter of any criticism targeting RSI since your apparently magical math abilities that qualified for you at USAMO couldn't get you accepted to RSI. I think we can all be glad of that, since your elitist mindset would harm RSI's program mission more that anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Hmm I highly doubt this once again but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I just feel sorry for you since even though you're intelligent, you odn't seem to have the work ethic that will allow you to succeed in the future, when only hard work and effort matters. What a pity!!!;)</p>
<p>USAMO qualification is clearly a joke for you but please don't spread lies on this webiste saying that such an accomplishment is not respected among higher academia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Like myself?
[/quote]
No, not like yourself...you clearly don't deserve that kind of credit. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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...
[/quote]
A great way to end any post.</p>
<p>Resorting to personal attacks are we...dear god MIT what have you done by accepting this ignorant character!!!!!</p>
<p>BTW, I'm not a troll.</p>
<p>I will return to my preparation for AMC 12B now(I hope I can break 120!!!:)). Hopefully, either of the Bens will disown you further but I honestly could care less whether MIT/Caltech consider AMC/AIME/USAMO to be "trivial or a "joke", since I feel like I have something to prove to myself and thats all that matters in my mind.</p>
<p>G'day to you.</p>
<p>Hmmm....Guys calm down.</p>
<p>Gracielegend's poster her opinion and that's fine. Granted, many of us may disagree with her opinion, but we don't need to turn this into some shouting match. Also, Gracielegend and others, there's no point to calling each other trolls or anything like that.</p>
<p>I'm just stating my opinion here too...just responding to the accusation that I was a troll...no harm done.</p>
<p>uh. hello train-wreck.</p>
<p>Just for clarification, I'm a student at Caltech, not MIT, and I'm a guy, not a girl. I second what pebbles said; this thread seems to going nowhere. </p>
<p>The reasoned responses of posters like texas137 and flierdeke are now being replaced by ad hominem attacks by immature teenagers that snuck onto the computer when their mommies weren't looking.</p>
<p>evil<em>asian</em>dictator, have you not learned from your posts in the Michigan forum regarding RSI? That thread got infinitely better when everything you posted was eaten up by the time warp monster.</p>
<p>I'm a little unsure of how I should let my schools know my self-estimated score. It's 111.5 on the AMC12, which isn't too high compared to that of many applicants, and I guess email is the quickest way - aside from perhaps fax? Someone noted earlier that email was not the best because it necessitates someone printing it and adding it to the file.</p>
<p>Thanks to texas137 for referring me to this thread.</p>
<p>I think there's one element of this that we're kinda missing here: Getting into RSI is a measure of accomplishments- not necessarily something that has intrinsic value. Its value as a evaluative tool lies in the fact that it represents a very selective cross-section of talented high school students.</p>
<p>Making the USAMO, however, could also be termed a measure of accomplishments, but I think it is best characterized as an achievement by itself; the accomplishment is the ability to get 10 AIME questions correct in three hours. The point at which I take issue with the USAMO-bashing on this thread is the point when it's seen as "no big deal"; I'm not sure I can speak for all math students, but it seems to me that even highly talented students spend hours upon hours developing the skills and the familiarity necessary to qualify. After all, even if 6 months of work for one or two hours a day doesn't seem like a lot of work, it still aggregates to 180-360 total hours, a total of 4.5-9 workweeks of added effort. Keep in mind that it takes some people much longer to reach that level of mathematical competence. On average, we're probably looking at the equivalent of a year's worth of intensive, concentrated effort, plus the gradual competence created by attending competitions for years.</p>
<p>Research and RSI, on the other hand, are something of a different animal. One could make a compelling argument that a comparison between USAMO and RSI is awkward anyway. In any case, people seem to get into RSI with help from previous research experience. (I'm aware that there are many exceptions). Most of the time, this experience encompasses full time work during the summer and some added time during the year; in other words, the time expenditure prior to RSI acceptance, compared to USAMO qualification, is roughly equal. The point where USAMO qualification takes a slight advantage, in my opinion, is when it becomes clear that time spent preparing for a math competition is much more focused and much more intensive. Preparation largely concerns reading difficult textbooks, like the Art of Problem Solving, or solving irregular problems. Research time is also rigorous, but many of the hours are spent waiting; for gels to run, for sequencing data to return, etc. Obviously, there are merits to both pursuits, but a quick "one is better than the other" judgment may be premature.</p>
<p>Finally, with regard to the numbers, something like 250,000 students attempt to qualify for the USAMO, with, until this year, ~250 succeeding. Last year, a total of 64 juniors qualified, and perhaps 30 students qualified earlier but did not qualify junior year. This gives us a total pool of around 95 students in one grade, who are about to apply to colleges like MIT. Compare this to RSI, which I seem to remember with around 75 participants yearly (with possibly more if both MIT and Caltech host). Since RSI participants are likely to apply to MIT at a higher proportion than USAMO qualifiers, the raw number of each in MIT's pool is also probably roughly equivalent.</p>
<p>All of this basically indicates that we're comparing apples and oranges; even so, I would argue that colleges should find them equally sweet. RSI participants seem to get more of a bonus from colleges, but the argument here is that perhaps that shouldn't be the case.</p>
<p>Wow... I think that's probably what all of us have been meaning to say, except we're nowhere near as articulate. (Er, I'm not, anyways.)</p>
<p>I think RSI is vaguely the same as having gotten into another selective college or having gotten a scholarship--it means you've done well in someone else's evaluation, which indicates some sort of accomplishment and strong interest, but isn't an accomplishment in and of itself. The actual application isn't a big deal, as various people have pointed out, and once you're there you're basically guaranteed to succeed with a bit of effort.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Research time is also rigorous, but many of the hours are spent waiting; for gels to run, for sequencing data to return, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Someone so needs to come up with an equivalent of this for math research. (I know, I know, it's called "sleep" or "thinking" or "drinking coffee." But still. Something legitimate-sounding, like needing to wait for the QED to settle in, or waiting for triangles to return from the lab for 180-degree-total calibration before being used in a proof.)</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.
So why exactly didn't you make it your senior year, then? Didn't bother to take the AIME?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Someone so needs to come up with an equivalent of this for math research. (I know, I know, it's called "sleep" or "thinking" or "drinking coffee." But still. Something legitimate-sounding, like needing to wait for the QED to settle in, or waiting for triangles to return from the lab for 180-degree-total calibration before being used in a proof.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That made me laugh. I know someone who would appreciate that all too much. :)</p>
<p>randomperson: My USAMO index in my senior year was about <10 points too short. It's definitely easiest to qualify during one's sophomore year.</p>
<p>Also, people misunderstood my last post. I never said that ranking RSI above USAMO qualification was either fair or justified. It's simply how the adcoms that I've talked to view these relative accomplishments.</p>
<p>Hmm...you should be a little more careful gracie before calling IMO gold medalists the "laziest people you'll ever meet".;) Anyway, does anyone know if Harvard views the whole RSI vs. USAMO deal differently???</p>
<p>Let me repeat; you are an immature troll with no clue of what he's talking about. I am talking about personal friends and acquaintances of mine here, not the fourth-hand sketchy rumor/myths you seem to base your posts on. </p>
<p>And considering that Harvard has rejected a number of IMO gold medalists/ USAMO winners lately, I would assume they rank RSI above USAMO qualification.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And considering that Harvard has rejected a number of IMO gold medalists/ USAMO winners lately, I would assume they rank RSI above USAMO qualification.
[/quote]
Well... about 40-50% of rickoids were deferred in the EA round this year, so I wouldn't be so sure.</p>
<p>Eric Price is the only IMO Gold Medalist that I am aware of who got denied by Harvard.</p>
<p>
Way to be a hypocrite...look at the language you use when you type. Also, I believe I have been on CC longer than you have which would signify quite the contrary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Eric Price is the only IMO Gold Medalist that I am aware of who got denied by Harvard.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure Eric wasn't rejected. Harvard may have figured he was probably going to choose MIT anyway and either deferred him from ED to RD or waitlisted him to see if he signaled that he preferred Harvard, but I don't think he was ever actually rejected. Also, olympiad medals in senior year don't count for the purposes of admissions. (although Eric had both RSI and a silver medal from the IOI before he applied).</p>
<p>When I saw evilasiandictator's reply, it reinforced his complete ignorance about these topics. I was certainly not talking about Eric Price (I don't even know whether he was rejected or simply wait-listed), but rather about several other students in the past few years.</p>
<p>Nice to see that texas137 also spots the lies.</p>
<p>Okidoke, let's calm down. It's a complicated question whether RSI or USAMO is "more impressive" -- but a smaller proportion of Rickoids get rejected/WL'd at MIT/Caltech/Harvard than do USAMO qualifiers. For what that's worth. </p>
<p>Nothing is a magic bullet. The admissions committees know that a year of decently hard study is enough to score well on the USAMO if you have some some smarts, so this alone isn't evidence of extreme genius... we also know that RSI projects are not always an enormously huge deal. (It's four weeks! The primary factor in the success of a project is often the engagement of the mentor!) We look at the context and make a reasoned decision about how much a particular set of accomplishments reflects on a student. </p>
<p>evil<em>asian</em>dictator is ignorant about the things he comments on -- this came out rather obviously in some past thread, so it might not be worth your valuable time, GracieLegend, to expend much effort on him. (For one thing, "nation's top mathematicians" is kind of a strong term to apply to some kids who scored well on some hard tests. Take it from someone who actually knows a few of the nation's top mathematicians.) I don't think anyone doubts that GracieLegend is more informed about these things.</p>
<p>May I suggest, GracieLegend, that out of self-resepect we do not reply further to evil<em>asian</em>dictator posts.</p>
<p>P.S. GracieLegend -- have we met? What are you going to be up to this summer? Feel free to reply by PM.</p>