<p>Please embrace a broader perspective while continuing discussion in this thread, without focusing on Godot or Devote.</p>
<p>I don't see any way USAMO could be an anti-hook, but perhaps many of the the people who were in USAMO and applied to MIT happened to have an uncreative personality, which is a big turn-off.</p>
<p>^I think you're asking Mollie to shut another thread down...</p>
<p>The general consensus is that qualifying for USAMO is a very nice honor to have and that it certainly impresses many people, but it probably will not guarantee you a spot at MIT or any other top school.</p>
<p>Also, that also plays into how MIT truly is aiming for a diverse student body, not just with race and gender. Don't you think it would be freaky if everyone at your school was a math genius? I would.</p>
<p>I don't think USAMO is an anti-hook either. It would probably be a plus just like any other ec you do really well. Likewise, MIT may not necessarily be every USAMO person's top choice.</p>
<p>I believe the OP does not exactly understand what an "anti-hook" is.</p>
<p>Like I've said in the other thread, an anti-hook is something that can hurt you on your college application (such as getting suspended). Making USAMO cannot possibly hurt you, as it can only be a plus to one's application.</p>
<p>I think the OP means to ask if USAMO is as big of a hook as say, 5 years ago, to MIT admissions. My answer, after seeing how many qualifiers got rejected, would be no. I do not know the exact reason, but if I had to speculate...</p>
<ol>
<li><p>They expanded the number of qualifiers (around 200 increase?) a couple of years ago, so that could take away the "prestige" of the competition and also create more qualifiers, thus creating more that get rejected by MIT</p></li>
<li><p>MIT admissions has changed from being stats oriented to other factors (such as personality). I know that the difference between a 9 on the AIME (which in most cases is passing) and a 6 on the AIME is far greater difference than a 2400 on the SAT and a 2300 on the SAT, but everyone always says how 2400 and 2300 do not make a difference. Maybe now, 9 and 6 on the AIME do not make that big of a difference?</p></li>
<li><p>I kind of alluded to it above, but getting into a good college like MIT requires far more than stats. They look at personality and character, so as a result, many qualified people just in terms of their stats do not get in, and many lesser qualified people just in terms of their stats do get in (because they have shown far greater passion, creativity, personality...)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Again, I am just speculating...but I hope to put an end to these kinds of discussions because one person's situation is not like another person's situation.</p>
<p>Actually, I believe the OP created this thread to discuss MIT's admissions process in general, not the idea of the "anti-hook", and only made reference to the USAMO to indicate that it was a continuation of a single idea from the previous thread which shared that title. I don't believe the OP's intention was to continue the discussion of the USAMO and Godot. Correct me if I'm mistaken...</p>
<p>Yea I dont think it was to continue the discussion on a specific person (like what happened in the other thread), but I think the OP finds it very surprising that not just Godot, but multple USAMO qualfiiers, get outright rejected to MIT every year...(maybe he can respond?)</p>
<p>Anyhow, whatever his intention was, my last sentence in my prior post is my take on it. </p>
<p>"One person's situation is not like another person's situation." It is basically impossible to predict/talk about MIT admissions process without actualy being an adcom.</p>
<p>Its basically impossible to speculate why multiple USA_O qualifiers get rejected but someone who has no idea what the AMC/never done any research gets accepted.</p>
<p>EDIT: I cant seem to find it now, but I know MIT does a good job with keeping track of data of all of its applicants (they have information on their webpage of average SAT score of acceptance...). I once found a page where they have checkmarks on which things were very important, important, considered...on a person's app. Maybe its better to look at that than to speculate.</p>
<p>Agreed. I was quite a bit nervous and thought that my odds of getting in were on the lower end of the spectrum, but low-and-behold I was accepted EA. I've done nothing amazing in terms of national competitions and research (never had the opportunity), but I've shown lots of passion and have done some pretty unique things, and of course I'm intelligent haha; not many people can say they've helped create, compose for, put on, and star in a musical titled Chemistry the Musical :P</p>
<p>People always bring up that top colleges have thousands of academically amazing applicants to choose from, and must make decisions based on other factors. The MIT info session said this outright.</p>
<p>However, the adcom speaking at the Harvard session made a comment that got me wondering. I don't have the wording exactly right, but here is a paraphrase:
"Every year we get a few hundred applicants that are virtual shoe-ins based on academics alone. Then we are left to pick the rest of the class from the (large %) of applicants that are academically qualified."</p>
<p>What could he mean by this? 2400's get rejected all the time, and as I understand it the best prep schools also have plenty of top students denied. Who are these people?</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Jashper is right, I'm fairly certain that the OP simply wanted to continue the raging discussion on the initial thread without focusing on Godot or Devote.</p>
<p>@lockn - If Harvard accepts some people based on academic-type things alone, I don't think it would just be a 2400 on the SAT. They'd probably have to have done a lot of academic competitions or the like. But that's unrelated to MIT. I don't know how Harvard does its admissions, this is all speculation based on what you heard.</p>
<p>@Jashper - Yeah, I was mostly in the same boat. I had the 700s on the SAT, so I knew I was like most MIT applicants - I had the scores they wanted. I didn't have anything spectacular on a national level, though, and was certain I'd be rejected - and then I got a tube in the mail O.O (My dad's convinced that what set me apart was flying planes. Ironically enough, I had only been flying a year at that point, but had horseback ridden since I was a kid, done community service since late elementary school, done drama throughout high school... go figure.)</p>
<p>I don't know about Harvard, but a Yale adcom also said that every year, there are from 100-200 applicants who are so overqualified academically that they automatically qualify for a seat in the admit pool.</p>
<p>Judging the number 100-200, I would presume those kinds of kids are like Waiting for Godot: extensive olympiad experience (USAMO, MOP, USAPhO finalist/team, any national team on the last stage...), Research experience (RSI, published in science journal...), Published a book (humanities), professional level work in the humanities...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its basically impossible to speculate why multiple USA_O qualifiers get rejected but someone who has no idea what the AMC/never done any research gets accepted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe because the USA<em>O qualifiers had advantages that the others don't that mostly come from knowing that these contests exist? Someone who goes to TJ or a similar magnet school has a greater advantage in these contests since their clubs are so much more established and there's just the environment where having multiple people on I</em>O teams in a single year isn't really a big deal, while I'm sure a lot of MIT applicants who have never heard of the AMC haven't taken it because their school just doesn't offer it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
while I'm sure a lot of MIT applicants who have never heard of the AMC haven't taken it because their school just doesn't offer it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't know what MIT was until junior year of high school. I didn't hear about all these competitions until I was applying for MIT and everyone else was talking about them :D</p>
<p>I've been following this thread quite closely, and I have some thoughts.</p>
<p>First of all, you'll find that MIT does a great job of admitting the top students in a given field. Five of the six members of the 2008 USA International Mathematical Olympiad team are here at MIT. The students I know from math class are either IMO contestants, foreign IMO contestants, MOPpers, RSIers, or USAMO stars. In fact, I firmly believe that the mathematical community here is much richer than in other schools. I know the same is true of other sciences, such as physics and electrical engineering. </p>
<p>Secondly, though MIT is a tech school, not everyone does engineering or math. Plenty of my friends major in biology, economics, management, or architecture, for instance. </p>
<p>I think those not admitted with stellar scores may have had better scores than those who showed passion in different majors, but may have had accomplishments less tailored to those other majors.</p>
<p>As an addendum, 10 on last year's USAMO was not particularly difficult (problem 1 was trivial). It was probably the easiest USAMO in the past 5 years. Also, the USAMO has expanded in size, making qualifiers more numerous.</p>
<p>As another addendum, an IMO perfect scorer was once rejected for not being a good fit. He is still a great mathematician, but it goes to show that other factors are involved, such as fit.</p>
<p>What relevance does last year's USAMO have in my case? I got a ten on the USAMO 2 years ago, missed qualifying last year by 7 points (197 index/204 required to make USAMO).</p>
<p>Not trying to throw out your point, just correcting a misconception.</p>
<p>
Heh, wouldn’t that be awesome. Math geniuses = 
</p>
<p>isomorphism is seems like you are one of those super-genius internationals, so although USAMO may be easy for you and 10 may not seem good to you, for all intensive purposes 10 is an EXCELLENT score on the USAMO (for your reference there were over 70 0’s last year)…</p>
<p>That’s definitely not what kept Godot out of MIT, and I’m sure it will be a driving factor for his acceptances come April 1st…</p>
<p>I don’t see why USAMO would be an ‘anti-hook’, everyone I know who qualified for that exam is bloody brilliant at math.
If someone doesn’t get into MIT even though he or she qualified for the USAMO, it’s probably due to something else really bad on their application (poor grades, low verbal SAT, lack of leadership, getting arrested for drinking alcohol underage…) you know the basics, not because the person qualified for USAMO.</p>
<p>Well wow I think its a bit harsh to say that anybody who qualified for USAMO but didn’t get into MIT must have had a severe flaw in their application such as low grades/test scores or getting arrested for underage drinking. I’m a 2-time USAMO qualifier (at the time my app was submitted) without any major flaws in my application (2290 SAT, top 2%, good EC’s and leadership etc) that was waitlisted at MIT. Was I dissapointed? Sure. Was I surprised? I don’t know…not really. I wouldn’t have been very surprised if I had gotten in either because I knew I had a passion for mathematics that was displayed in my application. I probably would not have been surprised if I had gotten rejected. I think what one person said earlier pretty much sums it up. MIT doesn’t want a class full of USAMO qualifiers. They want a well-rounded student body and admitted students on that basis.</p>