<p>Currently, I'm in the top 15 and top 10 in the national informatics and maths olympiad within my country. Unfortunately, it's my country's rule that I can only go to one selection round.... So, my question is, which is more prestigious?</p>
<p>Another question is, has MIT ever encountered some one who's a national olympiad finalist and the outcome for him whether or not to get trained and sent to the international olympiad comes out after the admission decision? If so, how does MIT regard this kind of "continuing" distinction? I mean, in this case, the MIT adcoms won't be sure whether or not this guy is potentially capable of winning an international medal (say, he probably is the "worst" finalist, but turns out to be the only international gold medal winner in the end from his country). What kind of attitude then MIT adcoms have towards that?
Also, how is he compared to some one who already won an international medal? Of course, the international winner should be regarded as "smarter" but by how much weight?</p>
<p>Last question is, I heard that MIT adcoms like olympiad winners, either national or international, but why? I sometimes wonder has MIT ever rejected olympiad winners, especially the international ones (how about national winners?). I didn't know what the h*ck olympiad is until I found about MIT a year ago. I found it quite interesting as I'm bored by the regular school taught stuff, and wanted some challenges, so I joined. BUT, the point is, is it possible, say, some one who's accepted could have been rejected if he just didn't include an olympiad award?</p>
<p>Just raise some admission issues here.....:p</p>
<p>It would probably look good, and would make you a top applicant if you had won a national or international Olympiad. </p>
<p>I'd say math would look better, but I have no experience admissions wise (beyond applying regular decision this year), so I'd recommend you get a few more opinions before you make a decision. </p>
<p>International probably looks better than national, but they probably are both looked upon highly.</p>
<p>also depends on country... for example to be a Russian, Chinese, Romanian IMO team members is potentially have more chance to get a medal, as comparing to any IMO weak country with classify for IMO team is ridicously easy.</p>
<p>btw, I heard this rumor that Maths > Physics > Bio > Chemistry, in terms of difficulty at the Olympiad level. That is, it's quite reasonable that a maths olympiad whiz can also do quite well in physics...</p>
<p>How about informatics? how would you rate it against the other 4 (Phys, Chem, Bio, maths) science olympiads?</p>
<p>I know a person from India, who was a friend of friend's who went for the International Math Olympiad and won a silver, but wasnt accepted to MIT the same year, when another friend of mine, who had qualified only for the National Olympiad, got through.. So you really cant say... And all olympiads would be given equal credit, go for the one which interests you more...</p>
<p>jackwang, if you want to, I can present you an entire theory about why IMO is not the hardest Olympiad. One of the main points is that they require quite different skills, apart from intelligence. For example, IChO has a theoretical and practical test instead of two similar theoretical tests like IMO, so chemists also need to master other skills than the art of problem solving.</p>
<p>As a reply to your question, I say go for the team where you have a higher position. It seems that you are in top 10 at info and top 15 at math, so go for info. My opinion is due to the fact that you have more chances to make it to the international level from a higher position.</p>
<p>But anything you choose, I am sure you'll do great.</p>
<p>I personally think that the Physics Olympiads are much easier than the Math Olympiads. I have looked at both types of problems and generally, the physics ones are much more "attackable."</p>
<p>I wouldn't worry much about that, choose the one you like better. I worked at the IOI last year(I was in the tech committee) and I can tell you that it was great. Wild parties, interesting people and a lot computers, what more do you need? :D</p>
<p>Well, I am definitely going to choose informatics because I am more interested in it...... Hope to clear the final selection round, and if so, I will be going to the IOI this year, 2008. The unique thing about me is that I'm the only foreign (Asian) participant in this national informatics olympiad in Europe.</p>
<p>So, you are going to the IOI, this year, Sh1fty??</p>
<p>Nope. I worked at the last IOI, I didn't compete. I'm kind of a practical person so those competitions aren't really my thing :D Maybe I'll drop by if I'll have enough money and time, but I doubt it :p Which country are you competing in?</p>
<p>Hey, Sh1fty, this year's IOI is going to be in Egypt. Hope to go and probably see you there....</p>
<p>BTW, good luck with your MIT application (I assume you applied?). I like Eastern Europeans very much because they generally work hard like Asians.</p>
<p>Any way, added you into my GoogleTalk, Sh1fty...</p>
<p>It's easy to get a bronze medal from IMO, i think. Definetly, there is a easy problem in each year. For example : IMO 2005 - There was easy inequality, IMO 2006 - Easy geometry which can be solved by triangle's angle qualities. 1 full solution is BRONZE MEDAL. But i found IOI is little bit harder than IMO. I agree that each year has easy problem (Not 1997,2001,2002 :D). But you have to solve at least 1 full and half or 3 half more problem for getting a bronze. Maybe somebody doesn't agree with me, but for me IMO is easy to get a medal. I know the man who got bronze, silver, and gold from IMO. But he got bronze from IOI. Informatics is combination of math and computing, so it is more interesting and harder than sole math. OK, let's stop it, it is only my opinion though :D .</p>
<p>I know where the next IOI is, since egyptians asked a lot of questions about what we did :) btw I'm one of those lazy people who'd rather work 2 hours on a script which will do something that can be done manually in half an hour :D</p>
<p>^CradleOfFilth^C'mon... IMO is not that easy...
one full solution is honorable mention... normally 2 full solutions or a lots of partial points is bronze... for example the cutoffs of bronce in 2006 was 15 and 2007 was 14.
u must confused the HM with bronce</p>
<p>Yeah , one full solution is never a bronze medal at IMO. With 2 problems out of 6 however you can most probably get a bronze medal.
There is always an easy problem at IMO. I have always solved that even though I' ve never been in the IMO team myself :D
The team leaders vote to select the problems from the "short list". Countries that have weak teams usually choose an easy problem so they won't get 0 points as a team. That's why the 4th problem is always a "are u stupid" inequality or a Sine Law geometry.</p>
<p>Oh sorry guys, i meant honorable award. But you know, after solving that 1 problem you have a chance to get half points from 2 problems. I dunno why, but IMO seems more easy to me; i studied in Russian systemized math class for a whole 10 years though. Yeah, every 4th problems are easy.</p>