<p>Chris,
so does MIT, as well as other colleges, consider a USAMO qualifier and Siemens Finalist almost equally talented?</p>
<p>Siemens Finalist is more talented than a USAMO qualifier IMO. Because through research you can show more creativity and it’s apparently harder to obtain (from my siemens friends).
USAMO qualificaiton has different meaning to me. (Does it have different meaning to you as well, Chris?) Every year we see a good amount > 5 qualifiers from TJ, AAST, Exeter, Andover etc. I recognize the fact many people from these best math schools in the country enjoy the best training system; the kids are like being spoon fed because their school have a tradition of training for USAMO. Whereas someone from a suburb high school who qualify for USAMO in the school history will impress me a lot more, I respect the kids who don’t have the access of AoPS and go to a relatively non-competitive high school but still qualify for USAMO. I feel like sometimes an institution like MIT being overwhlemed by the USAMO qualifiers will neglect the high school environment which these USAMO qualifiers are from.</p>
<p>Chris,
I’m planning on being a chemistry major.
I will have taken Reg.Chem - Adv.Bio - AP Chem - Microbio & Molecular Bio in hs.
would not taking physics hurt me severely for the admissions process?
I’ll be in multivariable calculus senior.yr.</p>
<p>Hey, by ‘out of this world good,’ you mean how good exactly? 
cheers</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>3 comments:</p>
<p>1) Don’t worry about the SAT II Math if you got a 790 for any school you apply to, even Caltech, which you probably won’t apply to if you’re a philosophy guy</p>
<p>2) You’re the man for reading that stuff - please recommend me things to read if you feel like it.</p>
<p>3) You should, if you haven’t already, try to read some logic if you’re into philosophy.</p>
<ol>
<li>Yeah, thanks, I guess I really got caught up in the CC hysteria…I mean, a 99%ile score here fails hard. I mean, like one person out of a hundred is better than you are, right? Your NEVER getting in anywhere good!</li>
</ol>
<p>For the last two,</p>
<p>This is honestly the most challenging thing I’ve ever done in my life. The books im reading assume completion of an undergrad degree, so I’m both filling in the gaps AND learning new material. It really is a TON of jargon; if someone ever says there “into” philosophy and don’t know about the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, phenomenology, process philosophy, etc etc, you know they haven’t spent a long time seriously studying it lol.
I think I’m about to get to a logic section, though. I’m in comp-sci, and I wrecked boolean logic, but that’s elementary…lol</p>
<p>I’m reading the Columbia Anthology of Twentieth Century Philosophies atm, its 750 small-text pages long but its interesting if you’re really into that kind of stuff.</p>
<p>Anyways, thanks for the responses guys. We can go back on topic now :)</p>
<p>Hey, by ‘out of this world good,’ you mean how good exactly?
cheers</p>
<hr>
<p>I knew a guy who took AP Physics in 5th grade and got a 5, even though he missed the last week of review. I think that’s about the area you need to be in</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. As has been lightly discussed here: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/929773-how-do-you-find-good-topic-work-intel-isef.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/929773-how-do-you-find-good-topic-work-intel-isef.html</a> many research project ideas came from a mentor, and the student was left to carry out the hard work part of it. I also read an MIT blog or something somewhere (can’t find it) where someone expressed disappointment that they didn’t see much raw creativity anymore, and the students might end up just being the enablers of other people’s ideas.</p>
<p>It’s also harder to get started in research than in math if you’re in a “disadvantaged” school/community/environment. With math, all you really need is yourself and some problems to think about. Friends that share an interest, or a math club/circle, are great too.</p>
<p>Regarding USAMO, the skills learned in doing contest math are quite useful in any discipline, as long as you’re not just memorizing massive amounts of theorems and “tricks” like school math makes everyone do. Unfortunately, I do acknowledge the latter does happen though.</p>
<p>Regardless, I think both are great accomplishments, but what really matters is that the student shows that they really love math, or microbiology, or whatever related field it is.</p>
<p>Why I mentioned the last part:
<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/dont_believe_everything_that_y.shtml[/url]”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/dont_believe_everything_that_y.shtml</a></p>
<p>That really ticked me off when I read it. Just saying.</p>
<p>Do stuff because you love it, not because it’ll impress college admissions officers!</p>
<p>Do stuff because you love it, not because it’ll impress college admissions officers! </p>
<hr>
<p>Dear God, AMEN!</p>
<p>I wonder if that’s the reason why so many of the 2300+ SAT College Confidentialers get rejected. They’re so obsessed with how pretty numbers look on a page…it’s disgusting</p>
<p>
The reason why is the sub-15% acceptance rate. For every 2300+ SAT applicant rejected, I can assure you far more sub 2300 applicants are being rejected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The acceptance rate on CC for 2300ers is certainly above the acceptance rate for 2300ers who aren’t CC posters. Moreover, this supposed numbers obsession is far less pervasive on CC than outside of CC, where many people ignorantly assume that scores ensure acceptance. In short: your assertion and its foundation are false.</p>
<p>Actually, at princeton 10% of the 2100-2200 are accepter, about 13% of 2100-2220 are, and 25% of 2300+ are. You can look at there admitted stats.</p>
<p>Moreover, this supposed numbers obsession is far less pervasive on CC than outside of CC, where many people ignorantly assume that scores ensure acceptance. In short: your assertion and its foundation are false. </p>
<hr>
<p>Well, I go to a school with realy personal college counseling, so I haven’t seen any of it, but I guess that makes sense.</p>
<p>@ Tackdizzle - </p>
<p>Hard to say - need to know the specifics of what they did, how much they achieved, etc. Both are pretty darn good though! </p>
<p>@ Tackdizzle - </p>
<p>We really like to see Physics in high school. Having taken bio, physics, chem, and calc are some of the only firm prerequisites we have. You will need to work extra hard to show us that you are capable of doing the work of physics in order to overcome its absence on your transcript. </p>
<p>@ Renais - </p>
<p>We accepted some 1600/USAMO kids this year. We also rejected some. No one - NO ONE - is an aut0admit at MIT. Believe me. </p>
<p>@ junhugie - </p>
<p>Bingo. As I’ve said here and elsewhere, the way we look at numbers if we see where they fall in our long term predictive models of MIT academic success. Once you’re in the clear - 700+ or so, depending on the section - the returns accrued by each additional increase in your score diminish markedly.</p>
<p>[MIT</a> Admissions | Blog Entry: “Don’t believe everything that you read”](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/dont_believe_everything_that_y.shtml]MIT”>http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/apply/the_selection_process_application_reading_committee_and_decisions/dont_believe_everything_that_y.shtml)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is dumb - and more importantly, wrong. </p>
<p>As Matt said: </p>
<p>**We admit people, not numbers or achievements.
**</p>
<p>Chris, if you were to go to MIT for a Lib Arts kind of education, would your same rules for physics apply? I’m good at physics, but I make loads of careless errors, hence a B+ in sophomore (non-AP) physics 2nd semester. (At a competitive private school)</p>
<p>However, I’ve always done better in harder classes, because…Actually I don’t realy know why, and I plan on taking Lin Alg and Diffy Q’s next year along with BC AND a comp sci self-study (Post-AP). Would that show “enough” aptitude? I know it varies from person to person, but I’m just looking for a ballpark answer lol.</p>
<p>The only reason I’m not taking physics is lack of time…I’m taking Bio though</p>
<p>Chris,</p>
<p>Does MIT consider Subject Test scores that exceed the requirement for Math Level 2 and a science?</p>
<p>“I found the secret on guarenteed [sic] Admissions to MIT” seems worthy of an entry in Snopes.
junhugie - one reason MIT and Harvard can manage cross-registration so handily is just location. It’s very easy to get from one to the other. Just walk. (Wellesley is farther but there is a shuttle. MFA is close too. Can’t remember where MassArt is.)</p>
<p>@junhugie - </p>
<p>Yes, physics goes for everyone, but a B+ in the context of a lot of other academic excellence wouldn’t sink you. </p>
<p>@Silverturtle - </p>
<p>Not sure I follow…</p>
<p>Hi Chris. Does MIT consider the context of the school when it make decisions? Every year we see a good amount (greater than 5) qualifiers from TJ, AAST, Exeter, Andover etc. I recognize the fact many people from these best math schools in the country enjoy the best training system; the kids are like being spoon fed because their school have a tradition of training for USAMO. Whereas someone from a suburb high school who qualifies for USAMO and becomes the first to qualify in the school history will impress me a lot more, I respect the kids who don’t have the access of AoPS, CC and go to a relatively non-competitive high school but still qualifies for USAMO. I feel like sometimes an institution like MIT being overwhlemed by the USAMO qualifiers will neglect the high school environment when making decisions.</p>